On Wed, Oct 13, 1999 at 09:17:16AM -0400, Bennett Todd wrote: > I just wanted to lob in a little caution; while it's clear that OmniMark has > missed the ... well, mark in their marketing, and they're saddled with a pack > of advertising geniuses who should be rounded up and shot, it's not so clear > to me that the product should be dismissed out of hand. _I_ might not want to > use it, and neither may _you_, but there are a lot of respected people who > seem to like it. Oh, yes. I definately concede to OmniMark when it comes to *ML parsing, it looks like that's the main strength of the language. From their code examples it actually -does- look more concise than using one of the *ML::Parser modules (I don't know if I beleive the ten to twenty times faster that their marketing stuff claims.) And yes, I realize this is all just marketing noise, and they're probably just victims of a Very Bad campaign, and it might actually be a decent language for somet things, but them trying to compete with Perl is just SO DAMNED FUNNY! I felt sorry for their booth guys, it was a running joke at TPC, "You're cheaper than Perl? So does that mean you pay us?" I remember asking them if they had a Linux version, they said "of course!" (white lie since they were showing off the IDE at the time), "Ahh," says I, pulling out my horribly mutated Powerbook, "I'll bet you don't have a Linux binary for PowerPC, though! Let's try compiling it right now, do you have the source handy?" "No, we can't give out the source." I was so flabbergasted I couldn't even utter the obvious "Sooo... why are you at the Open Source Conference?" -- Michael G Schwern schwern@pobox.com http://www.pobox.com/~schwern /(?:(?:(1)[.-]?)?\(?(\d{3})\)?[.-]?)?(\d{3})[.-]?(\d{4})(x\d+)?/i -- Michael G Schwern schwern@pobox.com http://www.pobox.com/~schwern /(?:(?:(1)[.-]?)?\(?(\d{3})\)?[.-]?)?(\d{3})[.-]?(\d{4})(x\d+)?/i ==== Want to unsubscribe from Fun With Perl? Well, if you insist... ==== Send email to <fwp-request@technofile.org> with message _body_ ==== unsubscribe