And Perl program written in "C" style (with substr() and index() everywhere) isn't considered readable

Do you perchance mean "isn't considered readable" by YOU?

Authoritative statements of fact, without citing the source of authority, are like those claims that mobile phones would fry our brain cells.

It is also a really strange claim. I mean, decently formatted C code is perfectly readable.

So, decently formatted Perl code written in the C-style can be equally readable.

It may not be idiomatic; or as concise; or as efficient; but there is no reason it cannot be readable. And if you are unfamiliar with Perl idioms; it is probably far more readable to you than idiomatic Perl.

BTW: I don't disagree that artificially rejecting the use of regex is a silly restriction -- unless it is done for a reason. Perhaps the idea is to encourage the OP to gain an appreciation of the work that the regex engine does on our behalf.

It may not be idiomatic; or as concise; or as efficient; but there is no reason it cannot be readable.

It's just bigger, more lines of code. More characters in line. More scrolling needed.

this

if ($x && $s =~ /(abc|def)/)
[download]

is more readable than this

if ($x && index($s, "abc") >= 0 || index($s, "def") >= 0)
[download]

It is also a really strange claim. I mean, decently formatted C code is perfectly readable.

Good C code is readable. But good perl code more readable than good C code.

Do you perchance mean "isn't considered readable" by YOU?

Of course. Should I append "IMHO" to every my posting?



And if you are unfamiliar with Perl idioms; it is probably far more readable to you than idiomatic Perl.

And if you are familar only with Assembler idioms, Assembler is more readable than Perl, and even more, than C


without citing the source of authority

cpan grep for index