herald: Python surpasses Perl in popularity!
According to
“TIOBE Programming Community Index for November 2008” at
http://www.tiobe.com/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html
it seems that Python has surpassed Perl in popularity this month!
Good for Python!
From my own personal experience in the programing industry, i find it
hard to believe that Python actually surpassed Perl in terms of use in
companies. Python is used in, Google, as everybody knows, but where
else? Perl is used in, umm, about every company except Google (and
probably Google too! in fact).
A quick search in monster.com, i find that perl returns 2673 results,
and Python returns 879 results. Perlers, you still safe!
Looking at other lang popularity site,
http://www.langpop.com/
it indicates that it's pretty much a tie.
So, i think it's not all peaches and cream for Python yet.
However, am pretty sure it'll be so in the next couple of years.
(btw, for those perlers who wishes to learn Python, see a comparative
tutorial:
• Xah's Perl and Python Tutorial
http://xahlee.org/perl-python/index.html
)
Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/
☄
Great to see quality post from real expert once in a while. Thanks!
Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/
☄
On Nov 29, 9:03 am, Stephane CHAZELAS <·················@yahoo.fr>
wrote:
> There's a common confusion in this in the nature of /bin/sh.
> There's no standard (neither POSIX nor Unix) that specifies that
> /bin/sh should be any variant of the Bourne shell. Over the
> years and on the different flavours of Unix, /bin/sh has been a
> Thomson shell, Mashey shell, Bourne shell and all its variants,
> Almquist shell, bash, ksh, zsh...
>
> For a very long time, on a wide range of Unices, it has been the
> Bourne shell (modified slightly in different ways by the
> different Unix vendors), so that's probably why it is still
> nowadays confused with the Bourne shell even though it is still
> so only on very few Unices (mainly only Solaris, Tru64 and some
> SCO OSes).
>
> Nowadays, what the POSIX and Unix standards say is that a conformant Unix
> should have somewhere (and the location is not specified but on
> most Unices except those quoted above is generally /bin) a
> command called "sh" that is an interpreter of the POSIX shell
> language it defines.
>
> Shells that do implement an interpreter for that language
> (though most shells of course have extensions which the
> specification doesn't prohibit, such as many C compilers (like
> gcc) have extensions to the standard C language as published by
> the ISO) include (with lesser or greater accuracy) bash (2 or
> above), the AT&T Korn shell (88<x> or 93<x> versions) and its
> variants, the public domain Korn shell and its derivatives such
> as posh, mksh or OpenBSD sh, modern variants of the Almquist
> shell such as the NetBSD sh or dash.
>
> That shell language is based on a subset of the ksh88 language
> and the Bourne shell is not a conformant implementation. Amongst
> the feature of the POSIX/Unix sh that are not in the Bourne
> shell are the $(...) form of command substitution, arithmetic
> expansions as in $((...)), the processing of IFS that differs,
> redirections of compound commands that no longer invoke a
> subshell... That language is mostly backward compatible with the
> Bourne syntax though there are a few small differences.
>
> To sum up, /bin/sh is no longer the Bourne shell. It is only so
> on very old systems and on systems that have chosen to keep the
> Bourne shell as /bin/sh for backward compatibility (and for
> those, the standard sh is in another place such as
> /usr/xpg4/bin on Solaris). Free software Unices have never had
> the Bourne shell as their /bin/sh as the source code of the
> Bourne shell has not been released until recently (except for
> some early versions of BSD and they were then breaching the
> law).
>
> --
> Stéphane