Re: Re: Re: Is Perl less compact than Ruby? (Kind of competition)

my testing has been limited,

i've only been using hello.eta and hello2.eta, but using | seems to be equivalent to || there. i tested both ways and they seem to work okay on the two hello programs. did your tests come out differently? if so, which programs should i be testing with (that is, which are more indicative of a real ETA program?)

As for the tic-tac-toe program, no matter which of the recent incarnations of the perl program i try, it seems to hang after i've given it input. does it just take a really long time or is it still running?

jynx

Comment on Re: Re: Re: Is Perl less compact than Ruby? (Kind of competition) Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
a little explanation by mtve (Deacon) on Feb 20, 2002 at 10:13 UTC
'`i`' is input operator of language, it must push on stack ascii code or -1 on eof. `ord getc\|\|-1` is excellent, although it's makes impossible to input NULL charaster. Again it's nice question of compatibility that I'm giving up to judge. It will be considered as cheating for sure. Update: oops, looks like previous version is also lame here (update2: not!) Update2: some perl black magic here: zero is false but "\0" is true. contrary to perlop doc's operator precedence, "`ord getc\|\|-1;`" means "`ord(getc)\|\|-1`" not "`ord(getc\|\|-1)`". Update3: Second claim is lying, see "perldoc perlop/named unary operators"
Re: Re: Re: Re: Is Perl less compact than Ruby? (Kind of competition) by dragonchild (Archbishop) on Feb 19, 2002 at 21:42 UTC
Use the tic-tac-toe program referenced in the root node. ------ We are the carpenters and bricklayers of the Information Age. Don't go borrowing trouble. For programmers, this means Worry only about what you need to implement.	[reply]


The stupid question is the question not asked
	PerlMonks