Re: Dots and cargo-cult programming

I just want to say that this territorial outlook toward random symbols is very interesting to me. I wonder: why do programmers, a highly intelligent group of abstract thinkers, become so emotionally attached to a language? Maybe it's because we invest so much time and mental energy---maybe even our very souls---into a language that we actually end up bonding with it!

What's also interesting is to see a tool become politicized which follows into my line of thinking that everything is political. If you're not on a deserted island, you will never escape the world of politics.

My point: none. Just wanted to share my observations. (OK, OK, my hidden political agenda is that I wouldn't mind picking up some XP! :)

$PM = "Perl Monk's";
$MCF = "Most Clueless ~~Friar~~ ~~Abbot~~ Bishop";
$nysus = $PM . $MCF;
Click here if you love Perl Monks

Comment on Re: Dots and cargo-cult programming

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Dots and cargo-cult programming by bikeNomad (Priest) on Jul 15, 2001 at 01:38 UTC
As I said, I really don't care one way or the other what Perl6 does, though I'd rather see a syntax that would be less confusing (and some of the changes in Perl6 will help there). I suspect that I'll have trouble with confusing ~= and =~ (especially because Smalltalk uses ~= for "not equal"). If I'm still using Perl by the time Perl6 comes out. I just thought it was curious that people thought that the copy/paste thing was important enough that they'd let it influence language syntax.	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re: Re: Dots and cargo-cult programming
by bikeNomad (Priest) on Jul 15, 2001 at 01:38 UTC

what

I suspect that I'll have trouble with confusing ~= and =~ (especially because Smalltalk uses ~= for "not equal"). If I'm still using Perl by the time Perl6 comes out.

I just thought it was curious that people thought that the copy/paste thing was important enough that they'd let it influence language syntax.

[reply]