[prev] [thread] [next] [lurker] [Date index for 2006/12/22]
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. In Perl, "there's more than one way to do it" does not mean "Perl can be used in different ways to solve different problems", it means "Perl has multiple redundant syntaxes for writing the exact same code to solve the same problem for the same purpose". Allowing "if" and "unless" does not increase the expressive power of Perl one jot not tittle. It just increases the complexity. But just to make it really hateful, there's no way to write a "switch" statement in Perl that doesn't step on some bit of syntax somewhere else in the language. > Are you proposing that > programming languages should be rigid and unsuitable for a wide range > of > tasks? No, because that would mean I'd want programming languages like Perl. Give me a language with simple syntax that supports things like introspection and reflection, so I can *create* new ways of doing things when *I* need to. For example, it's trivial to write an efficient and consistent "switch" statement... even one that can compile to a branch tree or a jump table depending on the domain and range of the variable being selected on... in just about any decent reflective language.There's stuff above here
Generated at 22:02 on 27 Dec 2006 by mariachi 0.52