[COFF] Most Popular Programming Languages 1965 - 2019

[COFF] Most Popular Programming Languages 1965 - 2019

[robert]

The author seems to have taken some care to get decent data sources.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Og847HVwRSI

[COFF] Most Popular Programming Languages 1965 - 2019

[paul.allan.palmer]

Didn't see perl. My all-time favorite. And I've used most of the others.

On Sun, Dec 15, 2019, 7:41 PM Robert Brockway <robert at timetraveller.org>
wrote:

> The author seems to have taken some care to get decent data sources.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Og847HVwRSI
> _______________________________________________
> COFF mailing list
> COFF at minnie.tuhs.org
> https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/coff
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/coff/attachments/20191217/3abbae86/attachment.html>

[COFF] Most Popular Programming Languages 1965 - 2019

[clemc]

Perl comes and goes - it there.   I was surprised to Kotlin but not Go.

On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 5:55 PM Paul Palmer <paul.allan.palmer at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Didn't see perl. My all-time favorite. And I've used most of the others.
>
> On Sun, Dec 15, 2019, 7:41 PM Robert Brockway <robert at timetraveller.org>
> wrote:
>
>> The author seems to have taken some care to get decent data sources.
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Og847HVwRSI
>> _______________________________________________
>> COFF mailing list
>> COFF at minnie.tuhs.org
>> https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/coff
>>
> _______________________________________________
> COFF mailing list
> COFF at minnie.tuhs.org
> https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/coff
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/coff/attachments/20191217/ae72c146/attachment.html>

[COFF] Most Popular Programming Languages 1965 - 2019

[grog]

On Monday, 16 December 2019 at 11:33:32 +1000, Robert Brockway wrote:
> The author seems to have taken some care to get decent data sources.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Og847HVwRSI

Interesting overview, but I have my doubts about its accuracy.  Lisp
seems to have been too popular in the mid-1980s, and at the same time
he claims that Ada was the most popular language.  Both seem highly
unlikely to me.  And then JavaScript got off to a flying start: over
4% in Q2 1995, quite an impressive for a language that was introduced
in Q3 1995.  So without much more proof I'd take it with a pinch of
salt.

Greg
--
Sent from my desktop computer.
Finger grog at lemis.com for PGP public key.
See complete headers for address and phone numbers.
This message is digitally signed.  If your Microsoft mail program
reports problems, please read http://lemis.com/broken-MUA
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 163 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/coff/attachments/20191222/713eed91/attachment.sig>

[COFF] Most Popular Programming Languages 1965 - 2019

[cym224]

On 12/21/19 17:22, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote (in part):
> On Monday, 16 December 2019 at 11:33:32 +1000, Robert Brockway wrote (in part):
>> The author seems to have taken some care to get decent data sources.
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Og847HVwRSI
> Interesting overview, but I have my doubts about its accuracy.
The author does not explicitly cite his sources.

[COFF] Most Popular Programming Languages 1965 - 2019

[krewat]

Define "popular" - what's actually in use, versus what people want to 
use. And job listings versus research. Both of those would lead to 
different results ;)




On 12/21/2019 5:22 PM, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
> On Monday, 16 December 2019 at 11:33:32 +1000, Robert Brockway wrote:
>> The author seems to have taken some care to get decent data sources.
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Og847HVwRSI
> Interesting overview, but I have my doubts about its accuracy.  Lisp
> seems to have been too popular in the mid-1980s, and at the same time
> he claims that Ada was the most popular language.  Both seem highly
> unlikely to me.  And then JavaScript got off to a flying start: over
> 4% in Q2 1995, quite an impressive for a language that was introduced
> in Q3 1995.  So without much more proof I'd take it with a pinch of
> salt.
>
> Greg
> --
> Sent from my desktop computer.
> Finger grog at lemis.com for PGP public key.
> See complete headers for address and phone numbers.
> This message is digitally signed.  If your Microsoft mail program
> reports problems, please read http://lemis.com/broken-MUA
>
> _______________________________________________
> COFF mailing list
> COFF at minnie.tuhs.org
> https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/coff

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/coff/attachments/20191222/e112fdf8/attachment.html>

[COFF] Most Popular Programming Languages 1965 - 2019

[dave]

On Sun, 22 Dec 2019, Arthur Krewat wrote:

> Define "popular" - what's actually in use, versus what people want to 
> use. And job listings versus research. Both of those would lead to 
> different results ;)

I've been keeping a list of all the languages that I've ever used since I 
was a stripling; it's up to 48, and that's counting all assembly languages 
as one etc.  That's about one language for every year that I've been a
programmer :-)

Yes, I try and teach myself a new language whenever possible; I'm 
currently looking at Ruby as a lightweight replacement for Perl (I run 
screaming from Python and its silly indentation), and Perl/Tk for a GUI 
for some scripts that I wrote (mostly puzzle solvers).

-- Dave

[COFF] Most Popular Programming Languages 1965 - 2019

[paul.allan.palmer]

I'd like to see your list.
I'm well over 20 but never listed them.


On Sun, Dec 22, 2019, 3:36 PM Dave Horsfall <dave at horsfall.org> wrote:

> On Sun, 22 Dec 2019, Arthur Krewat wrote:
>
> > Define "popular" - what's actually in use, versus what people want to
> > use. And job listings versus research. Both of those would lead to
> > different results ;)
>
> I've been keeping a list of all the languages that I've ever used since I
> was a stripling; it's up to 48, and that's counting all assembly languages
> as one etc.  That's about one language for every year that I've been a
> programmer :-)
>
> Yes, I try and teach myself a new language whenever possible; I'm
> currently looking at Ruby as a lightweight replacement for Perl (I run
> screaming from Python and its silly indentation), and Perl/Tk for a GUI
> for some scripts that I wrote (mostly puzzle solvers).
>
> -- Dave
> _______________________________________________
> COFF mailing list
> COFF at minnie.tuhs.org
> https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/coff
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/coff/attachments/20191222/359aac22/attachment.html>

[COFF] Most Popular Programming Languages 1965 - 2019

[grog]

On Sunday, 22 December 2019 at 11:51:12 -0500, Arthur Krewat wrote:
> Define "popular" - what's actually in use, versus what people want to
> use. And job listings versus research. Both of those would lead to
> different results ;)

At the very least, I would expect the language to exist.

I didn't mention job listings.

Greg
--
Sent from my desktop computer.
Finger grog at lemis.com for PGP public key.
See complete headers for address and phone numbers.
This message is digitally signed.  If your Microsoft mail program
reports problems, please read http://lemis.com/broken-MUA
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 163 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/coff/attachments/20191223/54dd377c/attachment.sig>

[COFF] Most Popular Programming Languages 1965 - 2019

[krewat]

On 12/22/2019 4:36 PM, Dave Horsfall wrote:
> (I run screaming from Python and its silly indentation)
You and me, both, brother, you and me both ;)

[COFF] Most Popular Programming Languages 1965 - 2019

[thomas.paulsen]

>>On 12/22/2019 4:36 PM, Dave Horsfall wrote:
> >(I run screaming from Python and its silly indentation)
>You and me, both, brother, you and me both ;)
you are right. However take into consideration that py is very popular in Linux and certainly Freebsd too.

_______________________________________________
COFF mailing list
COFF at minnie.tuhs.org
https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/coff

[COFF] Most Popular Programming Languages 1965 - 2019

[krewat]

On 12/23/2019 2:54 PM, Thomas Paulsen wrote:
>>> On 12/22/2019 4:36 PM, Dave Horsfall wrote:
>>> (I run screaming from Python and its silly indentation)
>> You and me, both, brother, you and me both ;)
> you are right. However take into consideration that py is very popular in Linux and certainly Freebsd too.
>
>

So is Taylor Swift ;)

[COFF] Gnu Smalltalk or...? [was: Most Popular Programming Languages 1965 - 2019]

[rtomek]

On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 08:36:07AM +1100, Dave Horsfall wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Dec 2019, Arthur Krewat wrote:
> 
> >Define "popular" - what's actually in use, versus what people want
> >to use. And job listings versus research. Both of those would lead
> >to different results ;)
> 
> I've been keeping a list of all the languages that I've ever used
> since I was a stripling; it's up to 48, and that's counting all
> assembly languages as one etc.  That's about one language for every
> year that I've been a
> programmer :-)
> 
> Yes, I try and teach myself a new language whenever possible; I'm
> currently looking at Ruby as a lightweight replacement for Perl (I
> run screaming from Python and its silly indentation), and Perl/Tk
> for a GUI for some scripts that I wrote (mostly puzzle solvers).

This question is not addressed to you only: I am considering Gnu
Smalltalk for such role (Perl & Python replacement). I knew Python 1
and 2 once, but since they made a (what appears to me as) botched[1]
move to Python3 I decided I wanted to try something else. This
includes rewriting few scripts I had made in Python into this newly
choosed language, as I am also moving into new OS installation
(perhaps OpenBSD) and I guess there will be no Python2 when I finally
make the move. Or if there is Python2 now, it is going to go during
one of upgrades which is scheduled (by design) to happen twice a
year or so.

The scripts are nothing hard, stuff like filtering lines of input
etc. Sometimes filtering bytes.

Python is nice as long as one stays inside the "batteries included"
limits, i.e. as long as one makes use of libraries provided as part of
the language. I was rather happy with those standard libraries.

As of Perl, I have to relearn it every time I make attempt to use it
and it just cannot stick.

AWK does not have things like built-in stat function and checking exit
status of command in child sh process seems to be a bit cumbersome. I
wrote few simple scripts with it after I finally learned I should not
write those in Perl. But it is far from perfect for overall scripting.

I am yet to teach myself GSmalltalk, but after skimming the
docs it seems to have the right classes for such scripting which I
would like to do - UNIX/Posix type of environment, text files, maybe
some bin<->uuencode mingling. This kind of things could be also done
in sh, but I deteste starting thousands of processes just to grep
stuff in files and then do something to thousand(s) of matched files
(or process a mailbox of 10000 messages and do something to 40% of
them). I guess it could be a bit faster to do it all inside one process
(and a bit less stressing for sys accounting database). Some of those
use cases might be nicely addressed with AWK, but some of them would
be better written in Perl (which cannot stick in my head) or Python
(which I would rather not use too much).

Another nice choice for me is some Scheme dialect with extensions for
systems programming - Chicken and Gauche seem to fit (but I have to
read the manual). Surprisingly, Elisp is quite well equipped with
plethora of nice functions (calling external command, finding files in
dir etc) but the need to parse output in buffers and inability to read
files in chunks disqualifies Emacs as (standalone) scripting engine. I
consider using Common Lisp (no need to learn it, so one problem off my
head), but I would not say it is perfect for scripting. Albeit some
scripts I wrote in it (sbcl) and I liked the experience.

As I am changing my default scripting language and OS, I would like to
kill one more bird. I would like to be able to compile it from sources
on a system which had been just installed from CD. In case of *BSD, it
means I choose a pack/set with sources and compiler (dev tools), the
installer unpacks it onto empty disk, there is no net connection. Then
I put a pendrive with my stuff, unpack a source code of said scripting
interpreter, call make; make install and only after this I go online
(or not).

So in this last case, if, for example, I chose sbcl, I would have to:

1. install base system
2. compile+install clisp (should compile with "any C")
3. compile+install sbcl (it wants a CL already installed to compile from
source)

A bit strange, but should be doable. I did 2+3 on my current system
more than once.

I am yet to try to compile GSmalltalk from sources and see how it goes.

So the language should be compilable with as little external
dependecies as possible, and with just the tools which either can be
found on bare install, or can be recompiled from USB with my sources -
the sources need not be the newest and glamourest ones, just usable
for my purposes. I can easily make a sh script to automate such
"compilation chain", and it can take an hour or a week, no problem.

I would appreciate any words of wisdom from those who went
this/similar path and could comment or hint a different choice.

[1] Overally, maybe my sentiment against Python as such grew over a
decade and it was not really related to the 2->3 transition. Maybe
rewriting some parts of the code is not that big deal really, but I
feel aversion to rewriting which is not linked to introducing new
features or bugs.

-- 
Regards,
Tomasz Rola

--
** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature.      **
** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home    **
** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened...      **
**                                                                 **
** Tomasz Rola          mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com             **

[COFF] Most Popular Programming Languages 1965 - 2019

[thomas.paulsen]

On 12/23/2019 2:54 PM, Thomas Paulsen wrote:
>> you are right. However take into consideration that py is very popular
in Linux and certainly Freebsd too.
>
> So is Taylor Swift ;)
OK, then py is the Taylor Swift of the programming languages. ;-)

_______________________________________________
COFF mailing list
COFF at minnie.tuhs.org
https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/coff

[COFF] Gnu Smalltalk or...? [was: Most Popular Programming Languages 1965 - 2019]

[bakul]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7055 bytes --]

My scheme of choice is Gambit Scheme. Gambit is quite portable &
fast. You can always compile to a binary if performance is an issue.
There is now Gerbil Scheme, that sits on top of Gambit and is geared
toward systems programming. It seems to provide a lot of additional
features, using Scheme’s extensibility but I haven’t used it yet.
https://cons.io/tutorials/ <https://cons.io/tutorials/>

I find scheme code clear and concise (but not as concise as array
languages such as k, my other language of choice, where I have to
relearn the code every time but then it is only a handful of lines.). 

These days python has become quite the glue language, used for all
sorts of things, from AI to GPIO fiddling. Not my favorite language
but a working knowledge in it has been useful.

I would have loved to use SmallTalk 30+ years ago. Now not so much.

> On Dec 23, 2019, at 3:13 PM, Tomasz Rola <rtomek at ceti.pl> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 08:36:07AM +1100, Dave Horsfall wrote:
>>> On Sun, 22 Dec 2019, Arthur Krewat wrote:
>>> 
>>> Define "popular" - what's actually in use, versus what people want
>>> to use. And job listings versus research. Both of those would lead
>>> to different results ;)
>> 
>> I've been keeping a list of all the languages that I've ever used
>> since I was a stripling; it's up to 48, and that's counting all
>> assembly languages as one etc.  That's about one language for every
>> year that I've been a
>> programmer :-)
>> 
>> Yes, I try and teach myself a new language whenever possible; I'm
>> currently looking at Ruby as a lightweight replacement for Perl (I
>> run screaming from Python and its silly indentation), and Perl/Tk
>> for a GUI for some scripts that I wrote (mostly puzzle solvers).
> 
> This question is not addressed to you only: I am considering Gnu
> Smalltalk for such role (Perl & Python replacement). I knew Python 1
> and 2 once, but since they made a (what appears to me as) botched[1]
> move to Python3 I decided I wanted to try something else. This
> includes rewriting few scripts I had made in Python into this newly
> choosed language, as I am also moving into new OS installation
> (perhaps OpenBSD) and I guess there will be no Python2 when I finally
> make the move. Or if there is Python2 now, it is going to go during
> one of upgrades which is scheduled (by design) to happen twice a
> year or so.
> 
> The scripts are nothing hard, stuff like filtering lines of input
> etc. Sometimes filtering bytes.
> 
> Python is nice as long as one stays inside the "batteries included"
> limits, i.e. as long as one makes use of libraries provided as part of
> the language. I was rather happy with those standard libraries.
> 
> As of Perl, I have to relearn it every time I make attempt to use it
> and it just cannot stick.
> 
> AWK does not have things like built-in stat function and checking exit
> status of command in child sh process seems to be a bit cumbersome. I
> wrote few simple scripts with it after I finally learned I should not
> write those in Perl. But it is far from perfect for overall scripting.
> 
> I am yet to teach myself GSmalltalk, but after skimming the
> docs it seems to have the right classes for such scripting which I
> would like to do - UNIX/Posix type of environment, text files, maybe
> some bin<->uuencode mingling. This kind of things could be also done
> in sh, but I deteste starting thousands of processes just to grep
> stuff in files and then do something to thousand(s) of matched files
> (or process a mailbox of 10000 messages and do something to 40% of
> them). I guess it could be a bit faster to do it all inside one process
> (and a bit less stressing for sys accounting database). Some of those
> use cases might be nicely addressed with AWK, but some of them would
> be better written in Perl (which cannot stick in my head) or Python
> (which I would rather not use too much).
> 
> Another nice choice for me is some Scheme dialect with extensions for
> systems programming - Chicken and Gauche seem to fit (but I have to
> read the manual). Surprisingly, Elisp is quite well equipped with
> plethora of nice functions (calling external command, finding files in
> dir etc) but the need to parse output in buffers and inability to read
> files in chunks disqualifies Emacs as (standalone) scripting engine. I
> consider using Common Lisp (no need to learn it, so one problem off my
> head), but I would not say it is perfect for scripting. Albeit some
> scripts I wrote in it (sbcl) and I liked the experience.
> 
> As I am changing my default scripting language and OS, I would like to
> kill one more bird. I would like to be able to compile it from sources
> on a system which had been just installed from CD. In case of *BSD, it
> means I choose a pack/set with sources and compiler (dev tools), the
> installer unpacks it onto empty disk, there is no net connection. Then
> I put a pendrive with my stuff, unpack a source code of said scripting
> interpreter, call make; make install and only after this I go online
> (or not).
> 
> So in this last case, if, for example, I chose sbcl, I would have to:
> 
> 1. install base system
> 2. compile+install clisp (should compile with "any C")
> 3. compile+install sbcl (it wants a CL already installed to compile from
> source)
> 
> A bit strange, but should be doable. I did 2+3 on my current system
> more than once.
> 
> I am yet to try to compile GSmalltalk from sources and see how it goes.
> 
> So the language should be compilable with as little external
> dependecies as possible, and with just the tools which either can be
> found on bare install, or can be recompiled from USB with my sources -
> the sources need not be the newest and glamourest ones, just usable
> for my purposes. I can easily make a sh script to automate such
> "compilation chain", and it can take an hour or a week, no problem.
> 
> I would appreciate any words of wisdom from those who went
> this/similar path and could comment or hint a different choice.
> 
> [1] Overally, maybe my sentiment against Python as such grew over a
> decade and it was not really related to the 2->3 transition. Maybe
> rewriting some parts of the code is not that big deal really, but I
> feel aversion to rewriting which is not linked to introducing new
> features or bugs.
> 
> -- 
> Regards,
> Tomasz Rola
> 
> --
> ** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature.      **
> ** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home    **
> ** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened...      **
> **                                                                 **
> ** Tomasz Rola          mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com             **
> _______________________________________________
> COFF mailing list
> COFF at minnie.tuhs.org
> https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/coff
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/coff/attachments/20191224/c17a5aa3/attachment-0001.html>

[COFF] Gnu Smalltalk or...? [was: Most Popular Programming Languages 1965 - 2019]

[rtomek]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2293 bytes --]

On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 09:46:18AM -0800, Bakul Shah wrote:
> My scheme of choice is Gambit Scheme. Gambit is quite portable &
> fast. You can always compile to a binary if performance is an issue.
> There is now Gerbil Scheme, that sits on top of Gambit and is geared
> toward systems programming. It seems to provide a lot of additional
> features, using Scheme’s extensibility but I haven’t used it yet.
> https://cons.io/tutorials/ <https://cons.io/tutorials/>

Thanks. As it sometimes happens, I have Gambit on my system, among few
other Schemes. It just did not look attractive when I looked at
it. But I have unpacked the newest version and guess what, two years
later it looks better... I will have to write some small code snippets
to see how it behaves (slurping and sorting twenty million lines of
txt, something like this).

> I find scheme code clear and concise (but not as concise as array
> languages such as k, my other language of choice, where I have to
> relearn the code every time but then it is only a handful of lines.). 

I think I will postpone learning APL and its cousins for a while. They
certainly had an edge when one could stuff complete solution on few
punched cards. This had to impress the by-lookers like hell, when
everybody had to tuck a box or few full of cards with them. On the
other hand, maybe I will have a look at k, who knows.

> These days python has become quite the glue language, used for all
> sorts of things, from AI to GPIO fiddling. Not my favorite language
> but a working knowledge in it has been useful.

Exactly my opinion too. I would say it makes for a nice sandbox
language where playing with stuff already inside is nice experience,
but doing new stuff, not so much.

> I would have loved to use SmallTalk 30+ years ago. Now not so much.

Ah. Maybe I should just stick with Gambit and relegate Smalltalk for a
low priority hobby/edu project.

-- 
Regards,
Tomasz Rola

--
** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature.      **
** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home    **
** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened...      **
**                                                                 **
** Tomasz Rola          mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com             **

[COFF] Most Popular Programming Languages 1965 - 2019

[athornton]

I work in Python for my day job.  Every day I use PyPi, the third-party
package repository, and every time I do I miss CPAN.  Sure, there was a lot
of crap in CPAN but the repository itself was well organized.  And Python's
testing framework has finally gotten OK-ish, but Perl always had good test
facilities.

I quite like the idea of "what musician is your favorite programming
language?"  Perl is Captain Beefheart, maybe?  Weird, eclectic, brilliant,
frequently incomprehensible?  Java is definitely Coldplay: it's corporate
rock.  It's fine.  PHP is Nickelback.

Adam

On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 4:15 PM Thomas Paulsen <thomas.paulsen at firemail.de>
wrote:

> On 12/23/2019 2:54 PM, Thomas Paulsen wrote:
> >> you are right. However take into consideration that py is very popular
> in Linux and certainly Freebsd too.
> >
> > So is Taylor Swift ;)
> OK, then py is the Taylor Swift of the programming languages. ;-)
>
> _______________________________________________
> COFF mailing list
> COFF at minnie.tuhs.org
> https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/coff
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> COFF mailing list
> COFF at minnie.tuhs.org
> https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/coff
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/coff/attachments/20191227/a24830f0/attachment-0001.html>

[COFF] Most Popular Programming Languages 1965 - 2019

[thomas.paulsen]

> I work in Python for my day job.  Every day I use PyPi, the third-party
> package repository, and every time I do I miss CPAN.  Sure, there was a
> lot of crap in CPAN but the repository itself was well organized.  
I agree. The perl package system is very good. On the other hand the golang 
package system is very good too, and it was even better, when the compiler 
still was written in C;  thus much faster than today's written in go.

[COFF] Most Popular Programming Languages 1965 - 2019

[tih]

Thomas Paulsen <thomas.paulsen at firemail.de> writes:

>> I work in Python for my day job.  Every day I use PyPi, the third-party
>> package repository, and every time I do I miss CPAN.  Sure, there was a
>> lot of crap in CPAN but the repository itself was well organized.  
> I agree. The perl package system is very good.

The package system may have been good, but what I remember most clearly
from working with it is how the dependencies would always get in each
others' way.  "This package depends on version 0.0.3a of pl-foo, but
also on this other package, which in turn depends on version 0.0.3b of
pl-foo, and of course 0.0.3a and 0.0.3b have completely incompatible
APIs, so you're screwed."

That's probably the start of the path leading to Docker, right there.

-tih
-- 
cpan. cpanic. cpandemonium.

[COFF] Most Popular Programming Languages 1965 - 2019

[paul.allan.palmer]

This is true but if you can run CPAN shell (I think it's called) it takes
care of this for you.

On Fri, Dec 27, 2019, 3:43 PM Tom Ivar Helbekkmo via COFF <
coff at minnie.tuhs.org> wrote:

> Thomas Paulsen <thomas.paulsen at firemail.de> writes:
>
> >> I work in Python for my day job.  Every day I use PyPi, the third-party
> >> package repository, and every time I do I miss CPAN.  Sure, there was a
> >> lot of crap in CPAN but the repository itself was well organized.
> > I agree. The perl package system is very good.
>
> The package system may have been good, but what I remember most clearly
> from working with it is how the dependencies would always get in each
> others' way.  "This package depends on version 0.0.3a of pl-foo, but
> also on this other package, which in turn depends on version 0.0.3b of
> pl-foo, and of course 0.0.3a and 0.0.3b have completely incompatible
> APIs, so you're screwed."
>
> That's probably the start of the path leading to Docker, right there.
>
> -tih
> --
> cpan. cpanic. cpandemonium.
> _______________________________________________
> COFF mailing list
> COFF at minnie.tuhs.org
> https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/coff
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/coff/attachments/20191227/a4a0d3a9/attachment.html>