nick at byu.edu
Fri Aug 12 10:47:48 MDT 2005
On Friday 12 August 2005 10:36 am, Hans Fugal wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 at 09:33 -0700, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> > On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 10:28:55 -0600, "Hans Fugal" <hans at fugal.net> said:
> > > I wouldn't go so far, in any case, as to say that TMTOWTDI has been
> > > conclusively proven to be a Bad Thing.
> > Yeah, but you're a sysadmin. :)
> Who happens to have a BS in CS and is headed for grad school in CS.
No need to get hoity-toity on us--we all have credentials.
> > The only difference between good code and bad code is exactly "what it
> > looks like inside." Perl5 makes it easy to write bad code and from what
> > I've seen of perl6 that won't change.
> Yeah, but you're a programmer. ;-) The real world mostly cares about
> what your program DOES. If perl programmers prduce a good volume of
> working quality programs, perl can't be all bad. Not conclusively proven
> bad, anyway.
Sure, one perl coder can produce gobs of useful code quite quickly.
Two can produce twice as many gobs of code as quickly.
But can they easily swap gobs of code and maintain the each other's code?
IMO, perl is pretty far out on the spectrum from the 'nearly self documenting'
language holy grail.
In my experience, if I have to read a line of code more than once to
understand it, it's poor code and is taking up my time.
Sales Team Automation, LLC
1335 West 1650 North, Suite C
Springville, UT 84663 +1 801.853.4090
More information about the PLUG