@GlenH7 This feels like a derivative of BOFHing someone - "Ah yes, this is a high solar flare month, that's probably why the outage happened, don't worry about it"

> So far we've managed to avoid turning Perl into APL.

I don't know if I agree with that

I probably actually would have liked perl ok earlier in it's life, before it got caught up with The Almighty Object as much. The bits I've tried finding stuff about perl tends to pay a bit more mind to "How to write Java in Perl" than I like. which isn't surprising, considering we have an entire generation educated in the art of writing Java in every damn language they run into.

@MichaelT I think "hrumf" is the ordinary "Yes, much appreciated!" in moose... so you like Perl Moose?

@MichaelT Noting I know little to nil about perl, I'm going to stretch myself and say "I don't really think you should be doing OO in perl"

It seems like an ok language for all sorts of things with some pleasant functional facilities to allow for some nice abstractions, but it seems like the wrong language for defining things in terms of domain models and data modeled relationships. It seems like very much of a "do stuff" language like LISP as opposed to a "represent stuff" language like the OO ones

@MichaelT I guess the little I've poked perl has given me this impression: Write it like LISP with lots of primitives and functional composition, don't write it like Java with lots of DTOs and Facades and Managers"

but then again I kind of have that take away about almost any language... I can't think of many languages I would ever like to be writing like Java...

@GlenH7 It's newer.

@GlenH7 COBOL consultants are much less happy with their lives

@MichaelT And incompetent malice is not to be feared for obvious reasons

Someone at some point might think we really like the weather in here. Maybe we all work for NCAR, who knows?

Actually NCAR would be an awesome place to work, you couldn't work in a prettier place

That's NCAR. My ma actually coded on a Cray there for a time in the 80s..

@GlenH7 ~15-20 minute drive from me. It's about 5 minute drive from downtown boulder, the whole surrounding area is Chautauqua park covered in hiking trails

from the parking lot you can walk on a trail that goes up behind the flatiron on the left, people climb that flatiron all the time

Another angle, you can see it's not far from the city or anything.

@GlenH7 When I worked in Genesee, there was some open space right down the street that had trails ending here

During the winter we would drive up genesee mountain (like 15 minute drive on part dirt road?) and snowboard down into the office parking lot. Also snowshoeing over lunch was common.

@MichaelT Got some woods around your new office?

@MichaelT Ah aye, some nice prairie their anywho

Moore's law: A law that everyone quotes like a proven formal law but is actually just something some dude said once that happened to be relatively accurate for a while. Basically equivalent to asking someone to predict a coin toss a few times, when they get it right claiming there's a law named after them that all coin tosses will be predictable.

> Tcl long ago fell into the Forth trap, and is now trying desperately to extricate itself (with some help from Sun's marketing department).

I'm not sure I believe that, or even where that belief came from?

> 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.

Does perl scope like JavaScript?

Because that's how I think of javascript..

@MichaelT Just like MUMPS! (Except you should use all caps and truncate to 5 letters).

@psr And in MUMPS it's for the same reason: Vowels cost extra; every vowel in a variable name takes up twice the memory of a consonant at runtime :(

:11680399 In javascript it's:

(function() {
  var local = "thisIsLocal";
  globalA = "thisIsGlobal";
  this.parentA = "thisGoesInMyParentScope";

  function() {
    var local = "iJustClobberredMyparentsLocalInsideMyScopeButNotOutside";
    globalB = "yep another global";
    this.parentA = "clobbers parentA inside my parent scope (as if a local in it)";
  }
}).apply(function() { var parentA = "look a parent scope, using apply I dynamically changed the parent of the crap I just defined above"; });

So it's lexical, but then depending on how you define variables they may go in local, global, or parent, and it's dynamic because you can use bind and apply to make the parent scope vary