I'll disagree so far as to say that a language that doesn't allow you to obfuscate code is very likely to be overly restrictive and only suited for a certain niche job. To me, the fact that a language is unsuitable for obfuscation is a point against it. That's not because I obfuscate production code, it's because the same shortcuts that let you express something in a hard to understand way, also let you express other things in an easier to understand way.

Cryptic coding is cool in the same way that cryptic tricky mathematical formulas that turn into something really simple once you solve them. Do I look down upon mathematicians who can do that? Hardly. Now would a mathematician intentionally use cryptic formulas when documenting his research? Also hardly.

Makeshifts last the longest.

I like the point about the virtuoso violinist. That'll stick in my head whenever I look at obfuscated code :-)

On the other hand, it is hard to argue that obfuscation has damaged the popularity of C or Perl. Both languages are very widely used, and I doubt that the ability to write cryptic code has had any impact on that.

Mind you, I don't obfu, because of a personal war against "clever" code in my projects. But as long as an obfu-loving geek will write clean, legible code at work, I say let him play. If I ever decipher the obfuscation, I'll probably learn something about the language.

"All you need is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure."-- Mark Twain