in reply to Re^2: HELP!!!! VB code to PERL?
in thread HELP!!!! VB code to PERL?

I didn't say there weren't a lot of people here who use VB, I said "many people here won't know VB." :)

At any rate, one posting to a Perl forum should not assume its inhabitants know languages other than Perl (even if it's a moderately safe assumption). This limits the number of people who will even bother looking at the node. Why not take an extra 5 seconds to convert it to pseudo-code? You'll get better replies.

As for your LotusScript situation, I'm sorry to hear that and hope you and your employer have a speedy recovery ;-)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: HELP!!!! VB code to PERL?
by diotalevi (Canon) on Jan 08, 2003 at 16:20 UTC

    Huh. And I think that VB-like code already looks very much like pseudo-code. Anyhow the LotusScript situation is even worse - the other supported languages are Java, C and C++. Feh. Anyhow, I'm terribly disappointed in what I'm perceiving to be language bigotry elsewhere in this response tree. The root node really shouldn't have been downvoted.

    Fun Fun Fun in the Fluffy Chair

[reply]
      And I think that VB-like code already looks very much like pseudo-code.

      Possibly, but I have a rare disorder that results in me being unable to read VB code. If I read more than 2 lines of it I get a migraine, start convulsing, and then lose consciousness. I think it's some sort of defense mechanism.

      Anyhow the LotusScript situation is even worse - the other supported languages are Java, C and C++.

      C rocks, C++ sort of rocks, and Java, well, I don't mind it too much. I hope you enjoyed the preceeding enlightening, objective analysis about those languages and their respective merits.

      I'm terribly disappointed in what I'm perceiving to be language bigotry elsewhere in this response tree.

      There is plenty to complain about when it comes to programming languages. Some are indeed flat out better than others. Just like any other type of design, language designs can suck. Writing criticisms of these sub-par languages off as "language bigotry" is not very constructive. Flame the hell outta advocates of crappy languages instead. It's much more fun.

      The root node really shouldn't have been downvoted.

      Don't look at me, I can't vote. Flame the saints instead, they're all in on it together.

[reply]

        Anyhow the LotusScript situation is even worse - the other supported languages are Java, C and C++.
        C rocks, C++ sort of rocks, and Java, well, I don't mind it too much. I hope you enjoyed the preceeding enlightening, objective analysis about those languages and their respective merits.

        Oh I did. So much that I'll ... oh wait. Hmmm. Well whatever I was saying I forgot.

        I'm terribly disappointed in what I'm perceiving to be language bigotry elsewhere in this response tree.
        There is plenty to complain about when it comes to programming languages. Some are indeed flat out better than others. Just like any other type of design, language designs can suck. Writing criticisms of these sub-par languages off as "language bigotry" is not very constructive. Flame the hell outta advocates of crappy languages instead. It's much more fun.

        Nah, I'm just reacting to the (as I write this negative nine) node reputation. I'm imagining that the monks who are voting the node down are just going "eww, VB. I'll moderate *that* node down". I don't know that but that's what I'm guessing.

        Imbeach Push!

[reply]
        A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom