Re: OmniMark Rant (was Re: [FWP] A fun bit of obfuscation)

["David H. Adler" <dha@panix.com>]

On Wed, Oct 13, 1999 at 11:35:53AM -0400, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> 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 this, I think is the worst part of their marketing: They bury what
they're good at in a morass of perl-bashing.  Leaving aside any
preference anyone in this forum may have for perl (ahem. :-), much of
what their advertising says is false and inflammatory, demonstrates a
clear misunderstanding of technical issues and causes any examination
of their actual strengths an afterthought.

I'd have no problem with them if they tried to push their actual
strengths.  In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if OmniMark could be made
to work *with* perl.  Unfortunately, they've probably cut that
possibility off at the knees.  :-/

dha

-- 
David H. Adler - <dha@panix.com> - http://www.panix.com/~dha/
"Well, sure, being a ruthless godless dictator is fun, but it's all
about the fans!"
	- Public Broadcast of His Imperial Majesty, Dimension 431-q-fhd

==== Want to unsubscribe from Fun With Perl?  Well, if you insist...
==== Send email to <fwp-request@technofile.org> with message _body_
====   unsubscribe