[prev] [thread] [next] [lurker] [Date index for 2006/12/22]
--SFyWQ0h3ruR435lw Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 11:54:20PM -0600, Peter da Silva wrote: > On Dec 21, 2006, at 11:24 AM, David Cantrell wrote: > >A general purpose language which can't be used in different ways to > >solve different problems is not fit for purpose. >=20 > In Perl, "there's more than one way to do it" does not mean "Perl can=20 > be used in different ways to solve different problems", it means "Perl=20 > has multiple redundant syntaxes for writing the exact same code to=20 > solve the same problem for the same purpose". >=20 > Allowing "if" and "unless" does not increase the expressive power of=20 > Perl one jot not tittle. It just increases the complexity. But just to=20 > make it really hateful, there's no way to write a "switch" statement in= =20 > Perl that doesn't step on some bit of syntax somewhere else in the=20 > language. Why stop at 'if' and 'unless'? Given a 'while', why bother having a 'for'? Heck, given 'goto' and 'if', why have any looping construct? Or is having a 'for' while having a 'while' ok because C has it, but having an 'unless' next to an 'if' not because Perl has it? If I wanted just one way of doing things, I would have joined the army, not get involved in computers. Abigail --SFyWQ0h3ruR435lw Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFi6tyBOh7Ggo6rasRAkrWAJ4tj+uD0taXgTaxRykMgD7JM5GtBACdFEDh 3Owe5fVpLtYcZjoKA4Clkw0= =7aTI -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --SFyWQ0h3ruR435lw--
Generated at 22:02 on 27 Dec 2006 by mariachi 0.52