[prev] [thread] [next] [lurker] [Date index for 2006/12/17]
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 "" ...
So which is my favorite language that I'm whining about Perl not
looking like again? The only common thing about all these languages is
that they actually *have* syntax, and they stick to it.
The problem isn't "Perl doesn't work like my favorite language", it's
"Perl tries to work like everyone's favorite language, and fails
completely in the attempt".
> especially when perl lets you define interfaces so it
> works just like your favorite language.
Yes, that's PRECISELY the problem.
> But of course "favourite
> language" doesnt allow you to define interfaces that work like perls
> do.
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. 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.
Generated at 22:02 on 27 Dec 2006 by mariachi 0.52