Re^4: A wholly inadequate reply to an Anonymous Monk (Perl++)

The only restriction that could stop any language from being considered write only, is the restriction of the people that use it. With enough idiots, you get enough horrible code. And the number of hoops they have to jump through to shoot themselves into their feet doesn't matter.

Besides quite a few people would consider anything that contains regular expressions write-only. And I ain't gonna loose regexps due to some clueless script kiddies.

Jenda
Enoch was right!
Enjoy the last years of Rome.

Comment on Re^4: A wholly inadequate reply to an Anonymous Monk (Perl++)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: A wholly inadequate reply to an Anonymous Monk (Perl++) by LanX (Saint) on Apr 23, 2010 at 14:52 UTC
In general it's surely right that no restriction can avoid people writing horrible code... But I was talking about marketing! With a pragma called "superstrict" ( or "anal"š or "antigolf" ) which combines the better parts of perl critic one could enforce a coding style which looks orderly and nice at first glance! (E.g requiring (more or less) one statement per line or avoiding the usual context traps with reasonable defaults) And thats how many representatives judge languages, at one glance! I mean bosses, school teachers or ignorant beginners. Just the illusion that a good coding style can be enforced is enough to improve the sells! "Oh you mean python looks less messy? So why don't you simply try "use anal" if you need punishment?" =) Cheers Rolf š) NSFW?	[reply]
Re^6: A wholly inadequate reply to an Anonymous Monk (Perl++) by Jenda (Abbot) on Apr 23, 2010 at 15:26 UTC
The best marketing then is not to show the code. The same way people tend to think the systems in banks are well written and safe and the only reason for that belief is that they hadn't seen the code. Jenda Enoch was right! Enjoy the last years of Rome.	[reply]