Larry Wall Quotes
born 1954 United States
Larry Arnold Wall (born September 27, 1954) is a programmer, best known as the creator of the Perl programming language.
- United States
- Engineers
- Programmers
Also known as: Larry wall, Wall, Larry
Random Larry Wall quote
257 quotes
If you're going to define a shortcut, then make it the base [sic] darn shortcut you can.
I try not to confuse roles and traits in my own life. Being the Perl god is a role. Being a stubborn cuss is a trait.
It's appositival, if it's there. And it doesn't have to be there. And it's really obvious that it's there when it's there.
Well, that's more-or-less what I was saying, though obviously addition is a little more cosmic than the bitwise operators.
I'd make people say 'use Fork;' if I thought I could get away with it.
Perl did not get where it is by ignoring psychological factors.
I don't like your I-can-use-anything-as-an-adjective attitude.
There are many times when you want it to ignore the rest of the string just like atof() does. Oddly enough, Perl calls atof(). How convenient.
You don't have to wait--you can have it in 5.004_54 or so.
As a linguist, I don't think of Ada as a big language. Now, English and Japanese, those are big languages. Ada is just a medium-sized language.
(To the extent that anyone but a Prolog programmer can understand \X totally. (And to the extent that a Prolog programmer can understand 'cut'.)
Anyway, my money is still on use strict vars . . .
The way these things go, there are probably 6 or 8 kludgey ways to do it, and a better way that involves rethinking something that hasn't been rethunk yet.
As someone pointed out, you could have an attribute that says 'optimize the heck out of this routine', and your definition of heck would be a parameter to the optimizer.
If there's a particular problem that Perl is trying to solve, it's the basic fact that all programming languages suck. Sort of the concept of original sin, applied to programming languages.
The random quantum fluctuations of my brain are historical accidents that happen to have decided that the concepts of dynamic scoping and lexical scoping are orthogonal and should remain that way.
We all agree on the necessity of compromise. We just can't agree on when it's necessary to compromise.
I note that the Python folks still think they like JPython. I wonder how long that will last?
No comment, since this is still hovering (see Larry's reply).
Flutter, flutter.
I was trying not to mention backtracking. Which, of course, means that yours is 'righter' than mine, in a theoretical sense.