3 ms·
Bravo if you can accomplish that with perl. I haven't hacked in perl in a long time but, from what I remember, you would have to resist using a lot of perl's s
by flooha 17y ago
Bravo if you can accomplish that with perl. I haven't hacked in perl in a long time but, from what I remember, you would have to resist using a lot of perl's shortcuts in order to make it speak for itself.
- bigiain 17y agoThat depends a lot on _who_ you're expecting the code to "speak" too. If I were writing code and expected non-perl programmers to read it, I might avoid using Schwartzian Transforms, but the reductio ad absurdum arguement for that point of view says you could only ever write code in plain english[1] because you might someday need it to be fixed by someone who doesn't know language-de-jour. If a Perl program needs fixing, you need to get someone who knows Perl to fix it, which means they _should_ know the standard set of Perl idioms. You _can_ write Perl in a way that Cobol programmers can easily understand and change, but you should never have too... big [1] or perhaps chinese to maximise the probability of being understood by a random maintenance programmer?