Re: "Native Perlish"

Given the syntactic richness that Perl offers, it's actually quite easy to tell what language a person was most comfortable with when learning Perl. Where I currently work, I can see C-Perl, C++-Perl, and Java-Perl, all in the same codebase (along with some Crud-Perl).

(They then complain about my Perl-Perl ... I mean, map and grep aren't "undocumented features", are they? Parentheses are required in C, but quite obfuscating in Perl ... right?)

------
We are the carpenters and bricklayers of the Information Age.

Don't go borrowing trouble. For programmers, this means Worry only about what you need to implement.

Please remember that I'm crufty and crochety. All opinions are purely mine and all code is untested, unless otherwise specified.

Comment on Re: "Native Perlish"

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re: "Native Perlish"
by jonadab (Parson) on Mar 28, 2003 at 13:41 UTC

I like the parens, actually. But then, I came to Perl from Emacs lisp...

I really can't stand Perl that's been written by an extreme died-in-the-wool C programmer. It's one thing to slip in an occasional semicolon-laden for loop (though I'm not fond of too many of them), but when every hash is pretending to be a struct and every array is traversed using an index and every simple pattern match is done with a loop and substr and every interpolation is done with sprintf, I want to scream. Don't get me wrong, I like sprintf, when I need leading zeros or something... I'm only talking about the people who use it when simple interpolation would do fine. People who write Perl like that should be punished by forcing them to read a thousand lines of code that does absolutely everything with closures.

for(unpack("C*",'GGGG?GGGG?O__\?WccW?{GCw?Wcc{?Wcc~?Wcc{?~cc'
.'W?')){$j=$_-63;++$a;for$p(0..7){$h[$p][$a]=$j%2;$j/=2}}for$
p(0..7){for$a(1..45){$_=($h[$p-1][$a])?'#':' ';print}print$/}
[download]

[reply]
[d/l]


Perl Monk, Perl Meditation
	PerlMonks