[OT] perl and CLRs

[Peter Hickman]

Nicholas Clark wrote:
> You seem to contradict yourself here slightly.
> Your statement implies that if Perl *were* available for .NET and JVM
> (which is a logical extension of porting to .NET alone, albeit 75% more
> work) then people might also play with Ruby.
>
>   
No. What I meant was that someone new to programming in a .NET 
environment is more likely to pick something new and exciting, like 
Ruby, over something old, like Perl. How many programmers taught 
themselves COBOL out of interest in the last 10 years, not many I would 
bet. But when I was starting COBOL and FORTRAN where the hot languages 
to learn, then it was C. The window for Ruby is opening. It has the 
publicity, it has the hype, it is cool. So it will benefit in being 
ported to .NET.

There is a .NET version of COBOL but this has not created a revival for 
COBOL, it has merely put it on life support. A .NET version of COBOL is 
unlikely to attract anyone to COBOL out of curiosity, Perl would do 
little better.

Perl is going to die, like half of the languages I used to program in 
already have. I will be pissed off, but it's only a programming language 
so I'll get over it. TABOL and FCS anyone?

>> Languages die, get over it.
>>     
>
> COBOL hasn't, sadly. I hope FORTRAN 77 does.
>   

I least I no longer get offered COBOL contracts these days and that's 
dead enough for me.

-- 
Peter Hickman.

Semantico, Lees House, 21-23 Dyke Road, Brighton BN1 3FE
t: 01273 722222
f: 01273 723232
e: peter.hickman at semantico.com
w: www.semantico.com