I agree with Paul Graham that terseness is, in general, a good thing, and that quick-and-dirty options are useful in exploratory programming. Both of these are reasons I use Perl, after all.
However, I don't quite see what a golfing challenge proves. Golfing is not about getting code working quickly, it's about wasting hours trying to make your program that one little bit more concise. But in exploratory programming, the key question is not "how concise is my program?", but "how long did it take to get it working?" (closely followed by "can I actually remember what that clever bit does?")
Which raises the question: is the Arc program Mr Graham provides really a typical example of what an average programmer using Arc might naturally produce during an exploratory session, or is it golfed?
In reply to Re^3: Take the Arc Challenge
by Porculus
in thread Take the Arc Challenge
by kyle
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |