[prev] [thread] [next] [lurker] [Date index for 2006/12/17]
On 12/17/06, Peter da Silva <peter@xxxxxxx.xxx> wrote:
> On Dec 17, 2006, at 12:05 PM, demerphq wrote:
> >> string.replace("^file:///?","";);
>
> > No. It. Shouldnt. HATE. I've written just enough pattern matching
> > code in languages requiring such a stinky syntax to know that it SUCKS
> > THE WANG REALLY FUCKING BIG TIME.
>
> Nobody who likes Perl has any stand at all on stinky syntax.
>
> > Not every language needs to look like that.
>
> Obviously, or I wouldn't have suggested
>
> string replace: '^file:///?' with: ''.
>
> Or
>
> (ask string replace '"^file:///?"; nil)
>
> > I hate this whiny "perl doesnt work the way my favourite language
> > works" shit
>
> OK, how about:
>
> string " ^file:///?"; "" replace
>
> Or maybe
>
> regsub {^file:///?} string "" ...
Its about brevity. Plain and simple. I don't want to write a bunch of
useless text when I do something as common as perform a pattern match.
I should be able to do a pattern match with about as much excess
verbiage as I need to do addition. As its quite possible that I'll be
writing code that does no addition but many regexps.
> Well, except for Forth. Or maybe Lisp. And I'll bet Bourne could have
> come pretty damn close with "C" macros... look at BOURNEGOL for
> evidence.
Hmm, I didn't realize that either allowed their syntax to be extended
to support perl style pattern operators or quoting.
> The fact that when people using these other languages try to
> make them look like something else they're treated like a bad joke
> should tell you why this is WHY Perl is hateful. And the "Perl Hackers"
> crowing about how cool this hatefulness is is probably the most hateful
> thing about it.
I can think of a bunch of hateful things about Perl, but the regexp
operator syntax is not one of them.
--
perl -Mre=debug -e "/just|another|perl|hacker/"
There's stuff above here
Generated at 22:02 on 27 Dec 2006 by mariachi 0.52