Re^3: Porting (old) code to something else

I did think of one serious -- and hopefully non-controversial -- question regarding your use of Slang for your module.

If at some point in the (hopefully far) future, it becomes necessary for someone else to take over your module -- someone who doesn't share your stylistic preferences -- how hard will it be for them to undo your use of Slang?

I'm not expecting an answer; but it's something to think about.

With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". I'm with torvalds on this

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. Agile (and TDD) debunked

Comment on Re^3: Porting (old) code to something else

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Porting (old) code to something else by Tux (Canon) on Feb 17, 2015 at 13:29 UTC
You'll get an answer, as this is a (very) good question to consider. It there would not have been this slang (for me), this module - as it currently is - would not have happened at all. So what is better/worse? My annoyance of having to write - what I consider - ugly code is so that I refuse to do so. Having this slang causes me to produce perl6 code - be it in a deviating style - with fun. Conversation with many of the perl6 dev people have already proven this to be useful. I found several bugs in the core and have - together with perl6 people - also made some amendments. The person(s) I am working with already concurred to use my style/slang. At least it is (very) consistent. The only thing I have to think about to make them happy is to not use tabs as leading whitespace (which already caused my Makefile to break a couple of times). Warning: the vortex that'll draw you into perl6 development is strong. If you cannot handle the force, do not get near :) Enjoy, Have FUN! H.Merijn	[reply]
Re^5: Porting (old) code to something else by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Feb 17, 2015 at 14:16 UTC
It there would not have been this slang (for me), this module - as it currently is - would not have happened at all. So what is better/worse? Years ago I took a contract in the IT dept. of a very large, UK retailer renowned for doing things "their way". The code was in C; the platform OS/2 and their coding standards, whilst not extreme; slowed me down and frustrated me enough to seek a solution. (For more details and an amusing story see one of my earliest posts here.) The upshot of which is that I used a C-beautifier and some editor macros to convert the house style to my preference when loading a source file; and back to the house style when saving. This simple expedient allowed me to type my code utilising muscle memory; and more importantly to read code in the style to which I was accustomed; thus maintaining my productivity and avoiding a lot of frustration. I fear that by building the stylistic adaption into the language, rather than providing an external tool to 'port' styles through a common set of choices, the result will be that a few years down the road when modules have passed through the hands and brains of many maintainers, it will end up being a hotch potch of different styles on a block-by-block basis enabled through the use of lexical pragmas. That's a world of pain that I have no desire to have to maintain. With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday' Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error. "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". I'm with torvalds on this In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. Agile (and TDD) debunked	[reply]


Clear questions and runnable code get the best and fastest answer
	PerlMonks