in reply to Re^2: What are the drawbacks of autobox?
in thread What are the drawbacks of autobox?

UPDATE: I surely do not intend to write something like my $error = 3.1415927->minus( 22->divide( 7 ) )->abs();. (Come on, BUK! even from you this example is quite polemic... ;-)

I just saw your above update. My only defense is that it is drawn directly from the second example given in the autobox POD.

I also saw your post, saying "how absurd this argument about Perl reflecting natural language is.".

It was you that suggested that array->push->element was somehow better than push array, element.

Another counter example is COBOL's MOVE value TO variable., though that's long been superceded by COMPUTE variable = expression;

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
"I'd rather go naked than blow up my ass"

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: What are the drawbacks of autobox?
by LanX (Saint) on Mar 01, 2010 at 15:14 UTC
    BUK it's this kind of polemic nitpicking why I'm not discussing with you.

    Let me explain:

    > I also saw your post, saying "how absurd this argument about Perl reflecting natural language is.".

    This is taken out of context and why swapping the objects brakes the natural language rules is perfectly explained in this post.

    As I said, Perl's push is OK for me, but it's not as "natural" as you want us to believe. You seem to have double standards!

    > My only defense is that it is drawn directly from the second example given in the autobox POD.

    Again it's only an example. It's meant to demonstrate the new syntactical possibilities of autobox. It's evidently not meant as a use case, which should be evident for reasonable minds.

    Forcing someone with nitpicking into examples which can't be criticized in any possible way, is a good method to make him speechless. I'm not playing this game...

    You claim that you want me to explain things to you, I claim that you primarily want to win a debate.

    Sorry if I do you wrong, but others here will certainly be willing to explain you the benefits of OOP and of reusing code from other languages.

    Cheers Rolf

[reply]
      but it's not as "natural" as you want us to believe.

      I never suggested it was natural. Just countered your argument by saying that both are equally unnatural.

      Again it's only an example. ... not meant as a use case

      An example that's not a use case is an interesting concept.

      I claim that you primarily want to win a debate.

      Nope. I seriously wanted to understand why you would even be considering using autobox in production code.

      I've got fairly well enchrenched views on programming langauges & paradigms, but every now and then I see someone who's opinions I value, suggest things that are contrary to my views, and I seek further information. And, potentially, reform my positions accordingly.

      I've reached my conclusions now, and no longer seek that understanding. I only re-joined this thread because I noticed your update explicitly addressed to me.

      explain you the benefits of OOP

      I don't need them explaining. But I do think they are way oversold.

      OO is just one of several programming paradigms, each of which has its place and its drawbacks. I like Perl because it allows me to choose the appropriate paradigm for the problem at hand, and mix them transparently.

      My confusion and disquiet arises when I see people moving towards the One True (whichever) Paradigm, to the exclusion of all others.

      Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
      "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
      In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom