[prev] [thread] [next] [lurker] [Date index for 2006/12/26]
On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 05:24:31PM +0000, David Cantrell wrote:
> A general purpose language which can't be used in different ways to
> solve different problems is not fit for purpose.
a general purpose language which can't be used in different ways to
solve different problems is quite obviously not a general purpose
language, by definition of "general purpose language."
> Are you proposing that programming languages should be rigid and
> unsuitable for a wide range of tasks?
I propose nothing of the sort.
I propose that perl's generality tends to cause reimplementation of many
wheels, even if CPAN (or perl's builtins) contain well known "best-
practices" implementations.
moreso, I propose that perl's "there's more than one way to do it"
slogan encourages unnecessary reimplementation, and perl's generality
encourages application of perl to problem spaces where it is not well
suited.
> On Sun, Dec 17, 2006 at 09:36:52PM -0800, Aaron J. Grier wrote:
> > I'm an engineer. not a poet.
>
> An engineer who only ever does things, like, say, build a boiler, in
> one way, without regard for how that boiler is to be used, what
> pressure it will have to handle, and so on, is a pretty fucking poor
> excuse for an engineer. I for one do not want someone who'll do
> nothing but locomotive boilers to work on my home heating system, or
> someone who insists that domestic boilers are the One True Way to work
> on trains.
you beg the question by assuming that all engineers design things this
way. they don't.
you also give an example of some perl programmers, who see perl as the
be-all end-all tool to solve their problems. it isn't.
I strive to be a good engineer. perhaps you strive to be a good poet?
--
Aaron J. Grier | "Not your ordinary poofy goof." | agrier@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
"silly brewer, saaz are for pils!" -- virt
There's stuff above here
Generated at 22:02 on 27 Dec 2006 by mariachi 0.52