Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Just another Perl shrine

Re: Separated JAPH/Obfuscation sections

by Falkkin (Chaplain)
on Feb 10, 2001 at 03:14 UTC ( [id://57513] : note . print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

in reply to Separated JAPH/Obfuscation sections

I personally disagree with the idea of Yet Another Section To Place Code. I find it daunting enough to figure out whether a bit of code I'd like to share should go in Code, Craft, CUFP, or Snippets; the difference seems to mostly be an issue of size vs. general usefulness vs. "Wow, you couldn't do that in most languages". I don't think that a similar split between obfuscation and JAPHs makes any sense... it's not as though the Obfuscation area gets more than a couple posts a day anyways. If you're dissatisfied with the recent posts in the Obfuscation section, just ignore them... save your votes up so that the real Obfuscations can rack up the ++. ;)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Separated JAPH/Obfuscation sections
by BooK (Curate) on Feb 12, 2001 at 02:54 UTC

    I agree that there are already a lot of sections here, and I often don't know where to post my questions... (Yes, I sometimes post elsewhere than in Obfuscated Code.)

    Clearly the Obfuscation section is not the place where most posts go. Anyway, I really feel that JAPH and Obfuscation are two different matters. I like to be surprised by the code I read in this section, and all too often alas, I know what a particular piece of code will print (and how) without reading it all (no I didn't read this one completely, but I am shocked by the good reputation it gets)...

    But you are probably right when you say I should ignore posts that I find "not good enough". It's just that these JAPH are not what I (and I hope others) think obfuscation is... At first I tried -- to indicate my reprobation, then I tried critique (or worse). Now, I feel that JAPH have their own use, which is good, but is not the same as obfuscation (which would be something closer to artistic).