Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!att!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!lll-winken!uunet!convex!convex.COM
From: tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.perl
Subject: Re: Scheme in Perl? (sp?):  The Blurb.
Message-ID: <108984@convex.convex.com>
Date: 19 Nov 90 23:19:43 GMT
References: <Fu+vkb93@cs.psu.edu>
Sender: news@convex.com
Reply-To: tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen)
Organization: CONVEX Software Development, Richardson, TX
Lines: 43

In article <Fu+vkb93@cs.psu.edu> flee@guardian.cs.psu.edu (Felix Lee) writes:
> Perl's aggregate datatypes are crippled by being non-recursive: you
> can't have vectors of vectors or tables of vectors.  Recursive types
> in Perl can be done by using references, but this is fraught with
> danger. 

    Perl isn't about nested data structures.  It prefers flat data
    structures.  Perl is more like a chainsaw than a jig saw.  Or think of
    Perl as a bigger hammer.  It lets you treat everything like a nail, and
    get away with it most of the time.  But sometimes not.

                                Larry Wall in 7577@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV

Sounds like you're the "sometimes not" case.

Of course, there's also this to consider :-)

    The trick is to use Perl's strengths rather than its weaknesses.

				Larry Wall in 8225@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV

You might also check out Larry's excellent response to Don Libes in 
<8497@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV>.  It's kind of an "apologia pro perl"
that describes Perl's weaknesses.  This is one of them.

> Another headache was a phenomenon I call "variable suicide".  Consider
> the following Perl fragment:
> 	sub add { local($a, $b) = @_; return $a + $b; }
> 	$a = 2;
> 	print &add(40, $a);
> This prints "80", instead of "42".  It's a nasty bit of interaction
> between local() and @_.  To avoid it, sp? is sprinkled with code like
> 	local(@sip) = @_;
> 	local($a, $b, $c) = @sip;

This is truly unsettling to me.  I hope Larry declares it a bug and fixes
it.  Or declares both of us confused. To me a program shouldn't have to
know anything about a library routine's choice identifiers.

Your scheme stuff sounds like a significant piece of work, and probably a
great program as well.  If I'd ever need Scheme, I'll be sure to check it out.

--tom