Perl or Python?

[localzuk]

So, I reckon I need a new challenge, so want to pick up another language.

 

Which should I choose - Perl or Python?

 

Perl looks very much like being stabbed in the face, but is incredibly useful for *nix work.

Python looks very simple to pick up but is a bit less commonly used.

 

So... thoughts?

[webman]

I voted for Python as I think it's more 'current', has a more appealing syntax and slightly more versatile.

[localzuk]

I've just realised, I've just asked a question much like 'coffee or tea', 'emacs or vi' or 'windows or mac'...

[webman]

Neither - nano

[localzuk]

Neither - nano

 

Nano users don't seem to be as rabid as vi and emacs users, so that's ok.

[tom_newton]

Perl, if it is usefulness you want. Can't beat it - especially for neat little one offs like batch processing.

 

Perl and Python developers (good ones) are rare in the job market - but jobs are correspondingly thin on the ground, if its career you are looking at, maybe look elsewhere.

 

Also, use vi. On a PC. Running Linux. Drink Coffee. That's all

[danbuntu]

it depends what you want to do.

 

Perl is very useful for scripting type jobs, managing servers etc

 

Python is used a lot now-a-days in creating desktop apps esp for Linux. There are apps like quickly and acire to help with this as well

[localzuk]

Hmm... Even fight so far. Seems I may end up learning both then... Now, which one to start with. I think Python, as it'll be easier to figure out.

[somabc]

Python.

 

It is easier to understand / start with (IMHO).

 

It has a great deal of free books and tutorials.

I have tagged some at somabc's python Bookmarks on Delicious

 

It has a great deal of modules that you can import and start using straight away. No need to reinvent the wheel. eg SciPy, NumPy, PyWin32s.

 

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/python.png

[tom_newton]

Here's an idea: pick a project first. Something you really want to do (or you'll get bored). Then pick the language. As danbuntu says, python is the boss of GUI & games (see frozen bubble), and i'd say perl is the boss of server/web. Or there may be a third wheel, depending on your chosen project...

[pete]

Both (at least enough to troubleshoot wierdness).

 

Although python has more soul

 

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/new_pet.png

 

And you should be using vi - who sshs into a random server expecting emacs or nano to be installed?

Edited August 18, 2010 by pete

[somabc]

And you should be using vi - who sshs into a random server expecting emacs or nano to be installed?

 

Real men use ed!

[webman]

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/real_programmers.png

 

There's an xkcd for just about everything.

 

SOURCE: XKCD. LINK: http://xkcd.com/378/

Edited August 18, 2010 by webman
Made credit to the image source more obvious.

[dhicks]

Perl or Python?

 

Python. It's a sensible language, with not too many features that make you wonder what on earth the author was thinking when he included them. It's also more suited to multi-processor applications and larger-scale software development projects, whereas Perl is more suited to quick get-the-job-done 5-line scripts - trust me, I've worked on large applications written in Perl, it isn't suited for that sort of thing. You can write applications in Python to run on Google's cloud infrastructure, which might be worth a look.

 

--

David Hicks

[powdarrmonkey]

There's an xkcd for just about everything.

 

And they all need attributing, in accordance with the license terms.

 

Anywho.... Perl is very powerful when you have data to deal with, but it's a weird language (and in six months time, you won't be able to read your own code with all those mnemonics lying around). Python is much easier to pick up.

[webman]

powdarrmonkey: License page: "This means that you are free to copy and reuse any of my drawings (noncommercially) as long as you tell people where they're from."

 

I justify my comment about there being an xkcd for everything to cover that. I'm not going to go off-topic by mentioning the technicalities of hotlinking, the definition of "your website" (their license page), and EduGeek.

[powdarrmonkey]

I justify my comment about there being an xkcd for everything to cover that.

 

It is not sufficient.

 

If you distribute, [...] the Work [... ] You must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing: (i) the name of Original Author (or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied, and/or (ii) if the Original Author and/or Licensor designate another party or parties (e.g. a sponsor institute, publishing entity, journal) for attribution in Licensor's copyright notice, terms of service or by other reasonable means, the name of such party or parties; the title of the Work if supplied; to the extent reasonably practicable, the Uniform Resource Identifier, if any, that Licensor specifies to be associated with the Work, unless such URI does not refer to the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work;

 

In this case, Munroe has indicated that an acceptable form of attribution is a link:

 

That is, you don't need my permission to post these pictures on your website [...]; just include a link back to this page. [...] You can use them freely (with some kind of link) in not-for-profit publications

 

Just accidentally mentioning the name of the comic in passing, with no reference of where to find it, is not IMO acceptable attribution.

[webman]

EduGeek is not my website...

[powdarrmonkey]

EduGeek is not my website...

 

So you have even more duty not to bring it into disrepute by contravening licenses.

[webman]

Well that's not my interpretation of the license. I've edited the post - hope that's OK with you.

[somabc]

The licence concerned is Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 Generic which for the UK (English GB) states

 

 

You are free:

 

to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work

to make derivative works

Under the following conditions:

 

Attribution — You must give the original author credit.

Non-Commercial — You may not use this work for commercial purposes.

With the understanding that:

 

Waiver — Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder.

Public Domain — Where the work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.

Other Rights — In no way are any of the following rights affected by the license:

Your fair dealing or fair use rights, or other applicable copyright exceptions and limitations;

The author's moral rights;

Rights other persons may have either in the work itself or in how the work is used, such as publicity or privacy rights.

Notice — For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the licence terms of this work.

 

So a link to xkcd is not valid attribution as xkcd is not the legal author*, you should say Created by Randall Monroe or © Randall Monroe etc.

 

However I would argue that under fair use you are entitled to embed the comic in this forum under English & Welsh Law.

 

(Caveats - I'm not sure where edugeek is hosted but I'm assuming its in England, different jurisdiction may apply, also Randall Monore may have assigned the ownership to an xkcd company in the states which would change the attribution)

Edited August 18, 2010 by somabc

[danbuntu]

So a link to xkcd is not valid attribution as xkcd is not the legal author*, you should say Created by Randall Monroe or © Randall Monroe etc.

 

 

actually that's not so. The XKCD licensing page mentions that you should mention where the source is 'from' - where 'from' is of course the website. In terms of attribution linking to a web site in worth then just a name as with a search on a name you might get the wrong person or have them give up looking for you.

 

Indeed if you really wanted to be picky about it you should give both the name and the link to cover both the license and the authors stated wish

 

Also see point 4 of: How to Attribute a Creative Commons Licensed Work - wikiHow

[somabc]

I'm sorry the xkcd licensing page is only a description of what the Author would like to happen. It has no legal force. The creative commons licence I quoted for the UK is the legal licence and it specifically states that the AUTHOR must be attributed that is all. Fair use trumps the licence conditions anyway. Even if the licence said do not copy this picture at all I could still use it here for the purposes of criticism/review/parody/reporting etc.

 

The wikihow page deals with the US Licence and is not relevant.

 

Of course if you want to be nice put a link.

Edited August 18, 2010 by somabc

[powdarrmonkey]

(Caveats - I'm not sure where edugeek is hosted but I'm assuming its in England,

 

Germany, actually. If you believe RIPE.

[somabc]

Germany, actually. If you believe RIPE.

 

OK well the German CC License has not been converted for German law, it is simply the US version translated. YMMV

 

The relevant authorities could be the UK (where I am) Germany (where edugeek is hosted) or the USA where the copyrighted work currently exists (hot-linked)