Re: perl

[prev] [thread] [next] [lurker] [Date index for 2006/12/22]

From: Abigail
Subject: Re: perl
Date: 09:54 on 22 Dec 2006
--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