perl-mode vs cperl-mode

perl-mode vs cperl-mode

[Colin Williams]

I'm trying to decide how to set up my perl development environment,
and I've come to a bit of a conundrum.  I realize that there is both a
`perl-mode' and a `cperl-mode' lying around in the emacs code base,
but it's unclear to me which one is better.  Many people have said
(rather authoritatively, I might add) that `cperl-mode' is much
better, but none of these people bother to list the ways in which it's
better.  I was hoping somebody could categorically list the features
`cperl-mode' has that make it better than `perl-mode'.

Colin

Re: perl-mode vs cperl-mode

[Elena]

On 7 Ago, 13:45, Colin Williams <lack...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm trying to decide how to set up my perl development environment,
> and I've come to a bit of a conundrum.  I realize that there is both a
> `perl-mode' and a `cperl-mode' lying around in the emacs code base,
> but it's unclear to me which one is better.  Many people have said
> (rather authoritatively, I might add) that `cperl-mode' is much
> better, but none of these people bother to list the ways in which it's
> better.  I was hoping somebody could categorically list the features
> `cperl-mode' has that make it better than `perl-mode'.
>
> Colin

Last time I used it, cperl-mode dealt with Perl's quirky syntax better
than perl-mode. You can check it on your own. Pay attention to both
regex and strings quoting.

Re: perl-mode vs cperl-mode

[Colin Williams]

I guess I understand that it generally handles quirky syntax "better,"
I'm looking more for examples/features that cperl-mode has that
perl-mode fails at.  So far we've got regexp and string quoting, are
there any other "useful" features?

On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Elena<egarrulo@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7 Ago, 13:45, Colin Williams <lack...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm trying to decide how to set up my perl development environment,
>> and I've come to a bit of a conundrum.  I realize that there is both a
>> `perl-mode' and a `cperl-mode' lying around in the emacs code base,
>> but it's unclear to me which one is better.  Many people have said
>> (rather authoritatively, I might add) that `cperl-mode' is much
>> better, but none of these people bother to list the ways in which it's
>> better.  I was hoping somebody could categorically list the features
>> `cperl-mode' has that make it better than `perl-mode'.
>>
>> Colin
>
> Last time I used it, cperl-mode dealt with Perl's quirky syntax better
> than perl-mode. You can check it on your own. Pay attention to both
> regex and strings quoting.
>

Re: perl-mode vs cperl-mode

[Michael Ekstrand]

Colin Williams wrote:
> I guess I understand that it generally handles quirky syntax "better,"
> I'm looking more for examples/features that cperl-mode has that
> perl-mode fails at.  So far we've got regexp and string quoting, are
> there any other "useful" features?

Regexp alone is enough for me.  It actually syntax-highlights the
control sequences in the regexp, making it far easier to write them.
cperl-mode also distinguishes between hashes, arrays, and scalars,
highlighting names appropriately.  Makes it easier to see how you're
actually using a variable name.

I'm not sure to what extent perl-mode does these; I jumped on cperl-mode
pretty fast.  I don't believe it does either, though.

- Michael

Re: perl-mode vs cperl-mode

[Ilya Zakharevich]

On 2009-08-07, Colin Williams <lackita@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm trying to decide how to set up my perl development environment,
> and I've come to a bit of a conundrum.  I realize that there is both a
> `perl-mode' and a `cperl-mode' lying around in the emacs code base,
> but it's unclear to me which one is better.  Many people have said
> (rather authoritatively, I might add) that `cperl-mode' is much
> better, but none of these people bother to list the ways in which it's
> better.  I was hoping somebody could categorically list the features
> `cperl-mode' has that make it better than `perl-mode'.

I (obviously ;-) tried to investigate this topic, and now I'm pretty
sure that nobody would be able to answer your question.  This is the
standard gnoseological problem: it is many years now that I did not
see people with clue (e.g., about cperl-mode) who know how perl-mode works...

In CPerl menu Mini-docs, there is the description of one half of your
question.  The other half would probably remain a mystery forever...

Hope this helps,
Ilya

Re: perl-mode vs cperl-mode

[A.Politz]

On Aug 7, 6:36 pm, Ilya Zakharevich <nospam-ab...@ilyaz.org> wrote:

>
> In CPerl menu Mini-docs, there is the description of one half of your
> question.  The other half would probably remain a mystery forever...
>

That's a dull statement to be made in a forum that deals with
open source software. It may be true, that everybody who had
ever used perl-mode is already dead, but the code is there
and can be investigated and compared until the end of time
(when skynet takes over, you know).

Measuring by the number of commands a mode provides,
perl-mode sucks, with only 9 commands, and cperl-mode is
more than 6 times better (62 commands).

-ap

Re: perl-mode vs cperl-mode

[Lennart Borgman]

On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 7:33 PM, A.Politz<politza@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 7, 6:36 pm, Ilya Zakharevich <nospam-ab...@ilyaz.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> In CPerl menu Mini-docs, there is the description of one half of your
>> question.  The other half would probably remain a mystery forever...
>>
>
> That's a dull statement to be made in a forum that deals with
> open source software. It may be true, that everybody who had
> ever used perl-mode is already dead, but the code is there
> and can be investigated and compared until the end of time
> (when skynet takes over, you know).
>
> Measuring by the number of commands a mode provides,
> perl-mode sucks, with only 9 commands, and cperl-mode is
> more than 6 times better (62 commands).


A lot of measures could be made and some are worse than others...

I guess you don't believe that just a number of anything is ever
useful, or? Of course I know a lot of people expect any number to be
useful because it is accurate or something, but... ;-)

Re: perl-mode vs cperl-mode

[Xah Lee]

> On 2009-08-07, Colin Williams <lack...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm trying to decide how to set up my perl development environment,
> > and I've come to a bit of a conundrum.  I realize that there is both a
> > `perl-mode' and a `cperl-mode' lying around in the emacs code base,
> > but it's unclear to me which one is better.  Many people have said
> > (rather authoritatively, I might add) that `cperl-mode' is much
> > better, but none of these people bother to list the ways in which it's
> > better.  I was hoping somebody could categorically list the features
> > `cperl-mode' has that make it better than `perl-mode'.

i code in perl daily from day job as well as my own scripts from about
1997 to 2004. Since then i haven't looked at the issue of which perl
mode is better, but basically, cperl-mode is far better during those
years, and probably true without a slightest doubt today too.

these sort of questions really only you can determine. Posting here is
probably just a social chatting call. LOL.

On Aug 7, 9:36 am, Ilya Zakharevich <nospam-ab...@ilyaz.org> wrote:
>
> I (obviously ;-) tried to investigate this topic, and now I'm pretty
> sure that nobody would be able to answer your question.  This is the
> standard gnoseological problem: it is many years now that I did not
> see people with clue (e.g., about cperl-mode) who know how perl-mode works...
>
> In CPerl menu Mini-docs, there is the description of one half of your
> question.  The other half would probably remain a mystery forever...
>
> Hope this helps,
> Ilya

Hi Ilya, i was intriqued by one of interview on you about how perl
lacks text processing functions. I wrote a essay about it:

• Text Processing: Elisp vs Perl
  http://xahlee.org/emacs/elisp_text_processing_lang.html

do you think my understanding of your remarks is roughly on the ball
park? Your comment appreciated. Thanks.

  Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/

☄

Re: perl-mode vs cperl-mode

[Ilya Zakharevich]

On 2009-08-07, Xah Lee <xahlee@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Ilya, i was intriqued by one of interview on you about how perl
> lacks text processing functions. I wrote a essay about it:
>
> ? Text Processing: Elisp vs Perl
>   http://xahlee.org/emacs/elisp_text_processing_lang.html
>
> do you think my understanding of your remarks is roughly on the ball
> park? Your comment appreciated. Thanks.

Depends on the level of roughness one accepts.  I trust that if you
understood the related topics, you would still consider it "roughly on
the ball".  On the other hand - I do not.  :-(

Sorry,
Ilya