5 ms·

I care a lot more about being able to understand the problem domain and maintain the code than merely being able to read it by way of familiarity with an Algol-

by acg 17y ago

I care a lot more about being able to understand the problem domain and maintain the code than merely being able to read it by way of familiarity with an Algol-derived language with class-based OO support and dynamic typing. Surely being able to read the code makes it easy to maintain: the reason you might use perl is for existing libraries/support and the level of abstraction available. Language design has a direct impact in maintainability.

berntb 17y ago
Half a dozen comments here (and lots in every other discussion on the subject) notes that you better learn the language before you talk about readability. (Perl has more syntax to learn -- the extra work is dwarfed by the libraries in every modern language. But you better follow the "Best Practices", for Perl.) Goladus might not be a troll, but according to his own statements he doesn't write enough Perl to really know it. He just sprouts lots of opinions on things he don't know. Edit: A few words for clarity. Edit I might also note that Goladus' second code example did a complex algorithm without comments in a way that could be classed obfuscated.
- acg 17y ago
  Trolls don't normally make good points. In a way you illustrate the point being made: but according to his own statements he doesn't write enough Perl to really know it. He just sprouts lots of opinions on things he don't know From the point of view of a professional programmer as simpler language like Lua takes hours to learn. What you loose is the power of expression, however for a novice one doesn't perhaps want this power. For example if I were writing a platform for photographers, I wouldn't choose a perl as an extension language: it depends on the audience. Don't get me wrong I've written perl in commercial environments since 1994, and privately before that. Goladus makes a good point.
  - berntb 17y ago
    First, Godalus implied that he knew what he was talking about regarding Perl, until it was pointed out that he didn't. Then he changed story. Edit: I might also add that Godalus' second code example modified an array inside an append to the array -- inside two tight loops... I've only seen things like that in obfuscations. (It could be extreme optimization -- but with a few earlier versions in comments or cvs/subversion/git/etc.) Tell me THAT code choice is not trolling...? Edit: Removed the rest, which has been written by multiple people in this thread.
chromatic 17y ago
> Surely being able to read the code makes it easy to maintain.... I've never written code intended for complete novices to maintain. I don't care if people who have never programmed in the language before can maintain code written in the language without learning the language. I think that's an effective way to ruin your code and your project and any long-term plans you have around the project. I care deeply about maintainability and learnability, but I care not one whit if someone who's never programmed in Perl can look at real-world Perl code and suss out exactly what it does and why based on... guesswork? Intuition? Experience with languages that are not Perl?
- acg 17y ago
  In design there is a trade-off of complexity vs. usability. Perl does a good job at giving programmers access to a lot of complex features by using clever/borrowed metaphors and idioms. The complexity still remains. This means when writing systems above a certain size perl is not a good choice precisely because it takes time to parse. I like perl, but maintainability has more aspects than just following community conventions. I don't know where you got the dislike of Algol: I cannot see the resemblance of algol and lua. Algol is in perl's ancestry (via the bourne shell) though.
  - chromatic 17y ago
    > This means when writing systems above a certain size perl is not a good choice precisely because it takes time to parse. > I like perl, but maintainability has more aspects than just following community conventions. I think you contradict yourself. In my experience, maintainability has a lot more to do with naming conventions, the use of abstractions, the use of metaphor to understand and express concepts of the problem domain, testability and coverage, repetition, the use of language and library idioms, consistency of expression, unit boundaries, and encapsulation of code and concept than language syntax. > I don't know where you got the dislike of Algol.... I don't dislike Algol, but I believe that there's a strong tendency in certain circles to believe that Algol-family syntax is so obviously right (or pervasive) that jumping between languages in that family is simple.

by acg 17y ago

berntb 17y ago

Half a dozen comments here (and lots in every other discussion on the subject) notes that you better learn the language before you talk about readability. (Perl has more syntax to learn -- the extra work is dwarfed by the libraries in every modern language. But you better follow the "Best Practices", for Perl.) Goladus might not be a troll, but according to his own statements he doesn't write enough Perl to really know it. He just sprouts lots of opinions on things he don't know. Edit: A few words for clarity. Edit I might also note that Goladus' second code example did a complex algorithm without comments in a way that could be classed obfuscated.

acg 17y ago
Trolls don't normally make good points. In a way you illustrate the point being made: but according to his own statements he doesn't write enough Perl to really know it. He just sprouts lots of opinions on things he don't know From the point of view of a professional programmer as simpler language like Lua takes hours to learn. What you loose is the power of expression, however for a novice one doesn't perhaps want this power. For example if I were writing a platform for photographers, I wouldn't choose a perl as an extension language: it depends on the audience. Don't get me wrong I've written perl in commercial environments since 1994, and privately before that. Goladus makes a good point.
- berntb 17y ago
  First, Godalus implied that he knew what he was talking about regarding Perl, until it was pointed out that he didn't. Then he changed story. Edit: I might also add that Godalus' second code example modified an array inside an append to the array -- inside two tight loops... I've only seen things like that in obfuscations. (It could be extreme optimization -- but with a few earlier versions in comments or cvs/subversion/git/etc.) Tell me THAT code choice is not trolling...? Edit: Removed the rest, which has been written by multiple people in this thread.

chromatic 17y ago

> Surely being able to read the code makes it easy to maintain.... I've never written code intended for complete novices to maintain. I don't care if people who have never programmed in the language before can maintain code written in the language without learning the language. I think that's an effective way to ruin your code and your project and any long-term plans you have around the project. I care deeply about maintainability and learnability, but I care not one whit if someone who's never programmed in Perl can look at real-world Perl code and suss out exactly what it does and why based on... guesswork? Intuition? Experience with languages that are not Perl?

acg 17y ago
In design there is a trade-off of complexity vs. usability. Perl does a good job at giving programmers access to a lot of complex features by using clever/borrowed metaphors and idioms. The complexity still remains. This means when writing systems above a certain size perl is not a good choice precisely because it takes time to parse. I like perl, but maintainability has more aspects than just following community conventions. I don't know where you got the dislike of Algol: I cannot see the resemblance of algol and lua. Algol is in perl's ancestry (via the bourne shell) though.
- chromatic 17y ago
  > This means when writing systems above a certain size perl is not a good choice precisely because it takes time to parse. > I like perl, but maintainability has more aspects than just following community conventions. I think you contradict yourself. In my experience, maintainability has a lot more to do with naming conventions, the use of abstractions, the use of metaphor to understand and express concepts of the problem domain, testability and coverage, repetition, the use of language and library idioms, consistency of expression, unit boundaries, and encapsulation of code and concept than language syntax. > I don't know where you got the dislike of Algol.... I don't dislike Algol, but I believe that there's a strong tendency in certain circles to believe that Algol-family syntax is so obviously right (or pervasive) that jumping between languages in that family is simple.