in reply to Re^2: Basic regex to parse source code
in thread Basic regex to parse source code

This sentiment is a bit unsettling to be honest. We may be Perl monks, but we aren't Perl bigots, or at least I hope we aren't. Invariably most solutions that people post will be in Perl, but I do not mind seeing how a problem can be solved using an alternate technology - I may even learn something from it.

My guess would be that he posted the link because that particular language is so obscure.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Basic regex to parse source code
by Corion (Patriarch) on Aug 02, 2009 at 09:10 UTC

    I think my post as more harsh than I intended. I like contrasting solutions that display how a certain problem would be solved easier or even different in another language. But that requires that the poster highlights and explains the differences and how the differences are crucial, instead of posting a "solution" without any explanation.

    For example, I have code that loops over cartesian products of arrays to find out the sets of elements that fulfill certain criteria. In the context of posts about that code, a solution in Prolog would certainly be shorter and exhibit far more beauty than nested loop constructs do in Perl. So, mentioning Prolog there, potentially with the example translated to Prolog would be OK.

    As another example, changing the SQL statement from fetching all rows and then doing calculations in Perl to doing most of the calculation in the database already is another case where another language than Perl is discussed (and hopefully used).

    But I didn't find any such discussion, or even beauty/succinctness/differentness in the posts by JennyC.

[reply]
Re^4: Basic regex to parse source code
by Your Mother (Archbishop) on Aug 02, 2009 at 00:15 UTC

    It's not particularly unsettling in context. This was the fourth biterScripting post in a row with no attempt whatsoever to make it relevant to the site, compare/contrast with Perl, or label as off-topic.

[reply]

      Did you make a google search for biterScripting? I did.

      The interpreter is distributed through a poorly-written site, sporting a link to download the exe, a faq with 4 questions, no reference to who is the owner/author, no trace of an EULA.

      Most of the 6000 and odds results of the search (I scanned only about a hundred, randomly), appear to be posts in forums, all made using only two groups of username, jenny* and patrick*.

      I'm really wondering how many users will be foolish enough to install on their PC a scripting tool (admin privileges, obviously) of so uncertain origin. Too much, probably :(

      Rule One: "Do not act incautiously when confronting a little bald wrinkly smiling man."

[reply]

        ++Good sleuthing there.

[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom