[prev] [thread] [next] [lurker] [Date index for 2003/09/16]
At 11:51 -0500 2003.09.13, Peter da Silva wrote: >> It was inferred, whether you intended it or not. That's the point. You >> are attacking things using words like "awkward" when these things are not >> awkward when used well, assuming the person looking at it knows Perl. > >I'm the mad Australian on a skateboard who throws a stack of >Adventure printouts in ten different languages at you in the enhanced >Berkeley adventure. I dig programming languages, learning new >programming languages is one of the things I do for fun. I don't >dislike Perl because I don't know it, I dislike Perl because it's >a badly designed (if that word can be applied to something that's >grown so organically) languages. That's a cute little thing for you to say, but if you have problems reading the day-to-day Perl code that I write, no, you don't know Perl. Sorry, but it is necessarily true. >The syntax is awkward, overcomplex, has too many obscure special >cases (there's to many obvious examples to list, I'll just mention >one of the obscure ones: the way scalars and collections in for >loops are treated) What, specifically, is the problem? At 00:31 -0500 2003.09.14, Peter da Silva wrote: >Um, I think that should be spelled "don't use Switch;". Of course >"mysterious errors" are something one gets used to in Perl so that's >not necessarily that much of an issue. Riiiiight, it is a major problem that the code doesn't handle a construct almost no one ever uses ... one that, in my years of Perl coding, I cannot EVER recall seeing. C'mon, surely you can do better. -- Chris Nandor pudge@xxxxx.xxx http://pudge.net/ Open Source Development Network pudge@xxxx.xxx http://osdn.com/There's stuff above here
Generated at 14:02 on 01 Jul 2004 by mariachi 0.52