The thing about readability of Perl vs. Python ... I dunno. I don't think it's the syntax itself that causes Perl to have some readability issues. Stuff like `$foo =~ s/bar/baz/g` or `join '-', split( q{ }, $a_str)` is very readable.
Context and corner cases maybe makes readability suffer. For example, what does `m///g` do in scalar vs. list context? I don't recall.
you might say that Perl's lack of (obvious, first-pass) readability is a two-headed dog from hell:
- it's a (very) good thing, in that there's -a- -lot- of expressive power hiding in those corner cases (esp list v. scalar context). in fact perl is nearly unique in the degree to which it embraces, rather than seeks to quash the potential for nuance and flexibility to be found in the various eddies and whirlpools that lie "between" non-whitespace elements of code. this is something that goes to the deepest intellectual roots of the language (to be more like the way the human brain thinks, rather than the way machines think).
- it's a (very) bad thing, in that the same "power" for expressiveness just represents little more than an endless stream of banana peels to most first time users (understandably sending many of them running into the arms of the other major dynamic programming languages). and that it just makes it too damn easy to write (barely) functional, pothole-laden frontline scripts (such that Perl is partly responsible for "scripting" being such a dirty word, in many quarters).
another aspect people don't like to talk about its nearly coprophilic fondness for not just nuanced and context-sensitive, but intentionally obtuse syntax (the impossible to remember "special" variables such as $[, $;, $' etc being probably the worst examples).
this also (sadly) has a lot to do with the community's deference to the aesthetics of its original authors (and is also plenty understandable, given the extent to which unabashed ugliness -- as personified by makefiles, shell languages and macro-laden C and C++ -- ruled the day at the time).
unfortunately it also blinds a lot of Perl folk to the fact that beloved muse just happens to look awful darn cluttery (or worse) to many reasonably intelligent people who come from more "modern" programming backgrounds (or who at least came onto the scene comparatively recently).
In the US, very infrequently does anyone ask anyone else who they're voting for. In fact, talking about politics can very quickly turn into a nasty argument.
You're also correct about generally being able to tell someone's political leaning.
Another thing is that the 2 parties (republican and democrat) are very clearly opposed and distinct. And every republican I know very strongly identifies with being a republican (and my guess is that they vote republican unquestioningly straight across the ballot). Surmise from that what you will.
I'd suggest that well-chosen defaults means: Make a pretty good guess at the most common usage patterns you expect most of your users to follow, and have your defaults do that by default.
I can't comment on whether or not svn/hg/bzr/git/darcs have well-chosen defaults. I only know that I hear it's a common complaint about git.
With the job market the way it is, you might consider advertising in more populated areas (like MA and CT) targetting people who might relocate for the right position.
If you have more data than, say, GDBM, can swallow in one bite, how could you break this data apart and then find the right chunk amongst multiple servers when given a key?
Also, what does the interviewer mean by this:
> I generally ask these folks if they think the problem of looking up a key by value has been solved before, especially given the two weeks to be live in production requirement.
That's the same way the Perl 5 community is often described. I don't know CL, but it would be interesting to read a comparison of Perl 5 & CL.