Re: Perl

[prev] [thread] [next] [lurker] [Date index for 2003/09/16]

From: Chris Nandor
Subject: Re: Perl
Date: 15:29 on 16 Sep 2003
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