3 ms·
I've lost you here. My C pointers analogy was relevant only in that is surprisingly hard to get by many people, and I don't know why is that so. The only thing
by snaky 13y ago
I've lost you here. My C pointers analogy was relevant only in that is surprisingly hard to get by many people, and I don't know why is that so.
The only thing in Perl that clearly imitates C pointers syntax and semantics is a hash/array reference element access '->' and I like it because it clearly distinguish from actual hash/aray access '.' and understandable for any person who knows C.
- kbenson 13y agoOh, I understood your meaning, it was just similar enough to another theory of mine[1] that I sort of launched into that frame of mind immediately. In short, people often expect other languages to act like C, and where they differ they get a bad rap (even through they often differ at that point for a reason, and it's often considered a strength by proponents). For example, caring about return context in Perl. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5657901 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5657901
- snaky 13y agoI think you get into the apple in quote you referenced, understand vs think they understand looks like core problem with many non-trivial and often actually very well designed things. Another example of this kind I see too often is a CPAN to <choose-a-language> guy. He thinks he understand what it is ("That's simple! Just a bunch of libraries packed in tar.gz available via FTP and HTTP, right? Oh, and there is the search field to find them, yeah. We also have such thing in <our-language> - see, ftp://..."). edit: Another good example is a Trackpoint clearly.