[33087] in Perl-Users-Digest
Perl-Users Digest, Issue: 4363 Volume: 11
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Wed Feb 4 21:09:16 2015
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2015 18:09:04 -0800 (PST)
From: Perl-Users Digest <Perl-Users-Request@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU>
To: Perl-Users@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Perl-Users Digest Wed, 4 Feb 2015 Volume: 11 Number: 4363
Today's topics:
Re: Am I adding an unnecessary step? <rweikusat@mobileactivedefense.com>
Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 6 Apr 01) (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 22:15:01 +0000
From: Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mobileactivedefense.com>
Subject: Re: Am I adding an unnecessary step?
Message-Id: <87fval8gt6.fsf@doppelsaurus.mobileactivedefense.com>
Mart van de Wege <mvdwege@gmail.com> writes:
> Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mobileactivedefense.com> writes:
[...]
>>> Arrays and references are definitely one of Perl's legitimate ugly
>>> warts.
>>
>> I've read this about references a couple of times already, but only ever
>> as unsubstantiated assertion and usually from people with a strong air
>> of "programming language A sucks because it is different from
>> programming language B and I was already forced to learn B".
[...]
> It is true that a lot of complaints are echo-chamber rantings, but
> that's no reason to go the other way and deny that Perl5 has any warts
> at all.
Trivially, Perl5 can't have warts because HPV can't infect it (at least
I very much hope so :-). Regarded as a metaphor (simile?), I understand
this as "property considered to be unsightly, bothersome and
useless". And that's IMHO not a good mental model for approaching/
describing a programming language intended to be used for programming,
ie, not something like brainfuck, because every aspect of it came into
being because someone considered it a sensible way to express something
useful, ie, there's always another perspective/ "one man's trash is
another man's come up".
"Not so good stuff" is usually one of
- things which were considered good ideas in the past but aren't
considered to be good ideas anymore (eg, universal dynamic
scoping for local variables), although there no consensus on
that
- stuff which sounds appealing in theory (to some at least)
but turns out to be unworkable in practice ('smart matching')
- unintended consequences of descisions made with something
different in mind (aka ${${$$a[0]}[0]}{a})
- tradeoffs were desirable properties come together with
undesirable ones, eg 'message passing' as object communication
model <-> no way to check method calls at compile time
In either case, being specific (like the 'multidimensional array'
statements) is more useful than issueing sweeping condemnations.
------------------------------
Date: 6 Apr 2001 21:33:47 GMT (Last modified)
From: Perl-Users-Request@ruby.oce.orst.edu (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
Subject: Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 6 Apr 01)
Message-Id: <null>
Administrivia:
To submit articles to comp.lang.perl.announce, send your article to
clpa@perl.com.
Back issues are available via anonymous ftp from
ftp://cil-www.oce.orst.edu/pub/perl/old-digests.
#For other requests pertaining to the digest, send mail to
#perl-users-request@ruby.oce.orst.edu. Do not waste your time or mine
#sending perl questions to the -request address, I don't have time to
#answer them even if I did know the answer.
------------------------------
End of Perl-Users Digest V11 Issue 4363
***************************************
