Then, in a study in which they pitted Perl against a language designed to do well in studies, the language designed to do well in studies prevailed.
No, it's not surprising that perl performed poorer than Quorum. The surprise is that perl did as poorly as Randomo, which should not be sensible given that the operators and keywords are gibberish.
I generally agree with what you're saying, but the point of the study is not that the well-designed language did better. Who wouldn't expect that? But there is no tautological question when you realize that the result they are focusing on is the near-even performance with Randomo, not the failure to exceed or match Quorum.
It's pretty clear that they aren't engaging in perl bashing, but trying to provide data that backs up their experiential findings as teachers.
From what I've understood, Randomo and Quorum's syntaxes share the same structure. Only keywords and operators changed. Therefore, Randomo has a much better structure than what we could expect from a truly randomly generated language.
So, while it still looks pretty bad for Perl, I'd say it's not that bad.
It always amazes me when people can dismiss academic papers -- the result of (at least) several weeks of work -- with a glib comment uttered anonymously, and no support given.
I have read the study which is why i made that comment. In fact, i've even contacted the author to gain more details about how they selected code samples to serve as learning aids and how all the other code samples looked like.
Additionally, i am not anonymous. Google my name and you will find all about me, including, if you look for longer than a minute, my full name and address.
Lastly, there was no need to give support in that comment by repeating what others and myself have said copiously all over the comments here. This was my main post towards that. Feel free to argue it: https://hackertimes.com/item?id=3153249
No, it's not surprising that perl performed poorer than Quorum. The surprise is that perl did as poorly as Randomo, which should not be sensible given that the operators and keywords are gibberish.
I generally agree with what you're saying, but the point of the study is not that the well-designed language did better. Who wouldn't expect that? But there is no tautological question when you realize that the result they are focusing on is the near-even performance with Randomo, not the failure to exceed or match Quorum.
It's pretty clear that they aren't engaging in perl bashing, but trying to provide data that backs up their experiential findings as teachers.