Day 3: Core Perl Developers at Work and Play
Day 3 of The Perl Conference started off with Larry Wall giving his State of the Onion Speech. For those of you who don't know, Larry is the creator of Perl. Larry is also known for his corny jokes, and there were plenty of them in his speech.
Larry used many visual aids for his speech this year, last year he used many different sounds in his presentation - next year he said he was going to use smells, he was joking at the time, but you never know with Larry. Larry used many circles as visual aids in this years speech, they were used to exemplify the new "open source" movement that has been going on recently. I think the best analogy he used was the pearl example. He said that a pearl starts out as an irritant, and then keeps growing and growing until it is something beautiful. Larry called himself the irritant in the example, but without him, we'd probably all be using some heavily marketed, proprietary language right now. Larry's analogy relates well to how Perl is now, the same goes for Apache and now Netscape is hoping to jump into the "open source parade" too.
Larry also made sure that we all remembered what three qualities make up a good Perl programmer, laziness, impatience, and hubris.
Chip started out for the pro side and had many good points, such as "There is more than one way to do it" or " If it helps some people develop code quicker, then leave it in." These are some of the fundamentals that Perl is built around.
Jon was next, his slides were titled OOP Sucks and he had several points why OO programming is bad. Jon's main point was that OO programming adds unnecessary complexity to the programs. He presented examples with benchmark timings, the OO side lost bad.
Tom also took the microphone and was debating with Chip. The funniest part was when Tom said "Would you argue with me?" to Chip because Chip had admitted to a few cases where Tom had good points. I think Tom's rebuttal summed it all up when he said "Remember what static actually means... dead." Tom got a round of applause for that one.
When the debate ended, I got the feeling that OO lost because it added unneeded complexity to the programs and slowed them down by creating extra overhead.
The questions were very well written and very challenging. Jon asked questions like "If Microsoft were to sell everything and go into the kidney business, how many kidneys could they buy at fair-market value?" or "Out of the following drinks, rank them in order of caffeine." Some of the questions even related to Perl - actually, most related to Perl, but Jon had to have some fun writing them.
The winning team ended up being Nick Ing-Simmons, Graham Barr, and Brand Hilton representing the Dallas/Fort-Worth Perl Mongers.
Perl.com Compilation Copyright © 1998-2006 O'Reilly Media, Inc.