I've just read a very thoughtful description of why one Perl programmer switched to Python. In this blog post, I'll explain why I did not.

When I started on the Marpa project, Perl was not an automatic choice. In fact it looked like it might be the wrong one. There was as much buzz for Python then as now. Maybe more. I'd had my own experience with Python, and it was excellent. I'd used Python to create a threaded mail client for testing purposes. I found Python to be easy to learn, fun to use, and an effective way to accomplish my task.

Perl had another problem. An important audience for Marpa, my new parser, is academia. Academics certainly use Perl. My experience is that they even respect it in a certain sense. But Perl does not fit neatly into the minimalist paradigms which still rule academia. If you speak Perl to academics, you are not talking their language. That means you run a great risk that nobody will listen.

I read and studied a lot about the relative merits and demerits of various scripting languages. Others have covered, and continue to cover, that ground very well. Let me go straight to explaining why I stuck. Perl has CPAN. And CPAN ... well, let me tell you a story.

An Incident on CPAN

Recently, my development version of Marpa::XS showed a lot of failures from the cpantesters. This happened immediately after a mild brag in this blog, about my impressive success rate in writing portable C code. It was like one of those Greek myths, where one of the Gods in Olympus decides a big-talking mortal needs to be taken down a peg.

I did not receive any lightning bolts, but I sure got a variety of test failures. With considerable effort, I was able to eliminate all but one of these on my own. The remaining failure happened only on the tests run by Andreas Koenig. Not that I expected Andreas's setup was at fault -- it was more likely that all the other setups were being liberal where Andreas was being strict. Which is what turned out to be the case.

So I emailed Andreas. Frankly, I did not have high expectations. Andreas is doing a lot of important things. My guess was that discovering why new C code on the unstable development version of a new module does not execute in his test setup might take quite a while to percolate to the top of his "to do" list.

I was therefore very surprised when the answer rocketed back. My development version of Marpa::XS failed only with the development versions of Module::Build later than a certain version number. Andreas, it turns out, is set up to do regression analysis, and the regression analysis pointed straight to the combination.

For those of you who don't know, regression analysis essentially sets up an equation combining various factors (in this case, module versions, Perl versions, hardware, OS, etc.) with an outcome (in this case, success or failure). It can be used to see which factors correlate with which outcomes -- in this case, which combinations of modules, hardware, etc. are correlated with failures.

It's a very cool technique. (I tried to get my clients to use it in my consulting practice, but there was just too much pushback on the math.) Andreas's regression tools pointed straight to the problem. It began to happen when Module::Build switched to non-lazy loading of dynamic code.

Here's what my bug was. I had declared a C function, call it xyz() . But I had never defined xyz() -- there was no code for it. But I also never called xyz() anywhere. With lazy dynamic loading, that meant no attempt to load xyz() was ever made. So with lazy loading, my bug was harmless.

In the name of thorough testing, Module::Build was switching to non-lazy loading. This meant that, call or no call, my executable looked for xyz() and, when it did not find it, abended.

In his email to me, David Golden left it an open question whether testing with lazy or non-lazy loading is best. I'll leave the final resolution of that to his capable judgement. For Marpa, I think Module::Build's new behavior is the best, and I've changed my test setup to always be non-lazy. In the future, any never-called never-defined function like xyz() will abend in my test setup.

Summary

My quest is to make Marpa's C-enabled version widely portable. To this end, CPAN not only offers me free widespread testing, but even fast, polite, high-quality help with debugging. Would I get that if I were programming in a language other than Perl?

Note 1: Marpa parses any grammar that you can write in BNF, and parses all grammars parseable by yacc or recursive descent in linear time.