Perl vs. C for bioinformatics

Joseph J. Strout jstrout at
Thu Feb 26 15:29:02 EST 1998

In article <34F61DA7.32AE at>, Pat Thoyts
<Pat.Thoyts at> wrote:

>Tom Walsh wrote:
>> >> Strong programming skills in C are required for all positions.
>> >>
>> >I would suggest using perl instead of C.
>>  Is this a general trend in computational biology? I know a little C and I'm
>> wondering if it's worth picking up Perl as well.
>>    Tom Walsh
>Almost certainly. Perl is _very_ good at handling text strings.
>It's probably worth your tme to look at tcl/tk too - especially now
>that it works under Win32 as well as X windows. _Easy_ multi-
>platform interfaces. :)

Well shoot, as long as we're hailing favorite languages, I would strongly
recommend Python over Perl or TCL.  It's got a far cleaner design and a
more powerful standard library than either of these.  And it's just as
cross-platform, interactive, etc.  By far, the most beautiful language I've
ever used (and I've used many), in its clarity and power.

See for more information on Python.

-- Joe

P.S. The email address in your From header violates RFC 1036. Please
include a valid (deliverable) email address in your From, Reply-To or
Sender header. Munging headers is *not* the way to fight UCE.

|    Joseph J. Strout           Department of Neuroscience, UCSD   |
|    jstrout at   |

More information about the Bio-soft mailing list