|
|
|
| The stupid question is the question not asked | |
| PerlMonks |
Re: The qq{worse is better} approach (discussion)by tachyon (Chancellor) |
| on Jul 02, 2001 at 19:24 UTC ( [id://93201]=note: print w/replies, xml ) | Need Help?? |
|
I think it is important to remember that selecting the right tool for the job is an important part of being a good programmer. I think everyone would agree you wouldn't use C++ for your example, however it doesn't make a case for using Perl over a shell script either. Accoring to Damian Conway there is a linear relationship between the length of a piece of code and the munber of bugs it will have and that shell script is shorter... Like you I like to write nice clean self contained elegant efficient reusable code which I hoard in my personal snippets chest. Most of this stuff is junk that just litters the hard drive but sometime these things come in handy again and I am glad I wrote them well in the first place. Sadly as time passes my definition of good code changes in the light of increased experience. Some of my old code is just horrible. But I loved it at the time. Be careful you don't fall into the Perl for everything trap like I did. It's a disease you know, with no know cure. cheers tachyon PS Suppose you won't like my sig ;-) s&&rsenoyhcatreve&&&s&n\w+t&"$'$`$\"$\&"&ee&&y&srve&&d&&print
In Section
Meditations
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||