5 ms·
> Perl is horrible (relative to other choices) for development, it ranks low on readability, refactorability, consistency, dependency evolution. The flip side
by rjbond3rd 16y ago
> Perl is horrible (relative to other choices) for development, it ranks low on readability, refactorability, consistency, dependency evolution.
The flip side is that other languages are tediously verbose, require IDE's, lack flexibility, and need frameworks to accomplish the simplest of things.
Language-memes. Less fun than they used to be :)
- efsavage 16y ago> require IDEs http://osteele.com/archives/2004/11/ides http://osteele.com/archives/2004/11/ides
- jedsmith 16y agoYou're using 'other languages' as an awfully broad brush, as that certainly isn't true for all languages with the exception of Perl. No language requires an IDE, either.
- masklinn 16y agoModern Java is downright painful to develop longhand, in a regular text editor.
- presidentender 16y agoDitto C#.
- didip 16y agoWriting c++ is painful without IDE as well. Come to think about it, the same can be said about Objective-C
- kenjackson 16y agoHonestly, every language I've ever used it painful without an IDE> I should never ever have a typo in my code. "Oh, I meant to say stackFrame, not stackFram... silly me". If that happens, your dev environment is broken.
- __david__ 16y agoThe downside of that kind of thing is when you misspell something in the header file and then auto-complete it throughout the code as you write, never noticing the typo until after you've checked it in and your peers start mocking you.
- kenjackson 16y agoFirst, how do you check-in w/o code review? Someone else will spot the typo. Second, to fix the typo, fix it in one place, and click->"rename" and it renames it everywhere else. Last, if your IDE has spellchecking support, it will let you know that part of your name does not exist in the dictionary.
- __david__ 16y agoMy response was mostly tongue in cheek. But I'm curious... where do you work that required code reviews before every commit? Seems like an awful lot of bureaucracy. For my projects I usually set up post-commit code review systems.
- kenjackson 16y agoI'm at a startup now. But I think you'll find most of the big shops you know about, like Google and MS, generally practice pre-commit review. Open source projects often will do post-commit review. The review process is viewed as friction, and they don't want to block contributors due to the review process. I personally prefer pre-commit review, although post-commit is a legitimate option (one I admittedly wasn't thinking about at the time).
- Roboprog 16y agoSo where do developers checkpoint their work until the official commit? Either: The smarter ones have to maintain a second source control archive (unless they are allowed to make personal branches, in which case the "public commit" is really just a merge, and probably a good thing), or the dumber ones just work without a net, loosing changes, and/or having to manually back out edit and test sessions that didn't go as well as hoped. Oh, and I just realized I'm replying to the same guy about this.
- rjbond3rd 16y agoExactly. These are simply memes. Not to be taken seriously :)
- masklinn 16y agoAnd then there's smalltalk.