Re^5: Perl Monks += TMTOWTDI (fallibility)

Yes, maybe he is. Did I say otherwise? I said the question is if so.

That TheDamian's code would get shredded for not using strict alone is a pointless fact. I doubt a lot of people would be able to fully grok the stuff he does, let alone recreate it under strictures.

It's not a matter of whether code written by $X is good or bad; it's a matter of the probability of $X writing good code in relation to the probably of oneself writing good code.

Makeshifts last the longest.

Comment on Re^5: Perl Monks += TMTOWTDI (fallibility)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re^5: Perl Monks += TMTOWTDI (fallibility) by Anonymous Monk on Apr 16, 2003 at 13:54 UTC
it's a matter of the probability of $X writing good code in relation to the probably of oneself writing good code. True, however, if you can't understand the code, should you really be using it? How maintainable is the code if only Damian knows what it's doing? What's to prevent Damian from taking advantage of his vastly superior knowledge and inserting code that will turn my processor into a nuclear weapon and holding the world hostage until they pay him the sum of 1 Million Dollars! I mean, look at his picture, he's evil. EEEVIL.	[reply]
Re^7: Perl Monks += TMTOWTDI (fallibility) by Aristotle (Chancellor) on Apr 16, 2003 at 16:00 UTC
if you can't understand the code, should you really be using it? So you have read, understood and grokked the entire source for `perl`? `:)` That of your OS? Its device drivers? . o O ( What's that dead horse doing in here? ) Makeshifts last the longest.	[reply]
Re: Re^7: Perl Monks += TMTOWTDI (fallibility) by Anonymous Monk on Apr 17, 2003 at 06:28 UTC
Yes.	[reply]
Re^9: Perl Monks += TMTOWTDI (fallibility) by Aristotle (Chancellor) on Apr 17, 2003 at 16:47 UTC


Don't ask to ask, just ask
	PerlMonks