sub take { ref $_[0]?
push@{$_[1]},$_[0]:"You can't take the $_[0] from me"}
sub them { ($m=$_[0]) =~ tr/ktb'goIaincm /yrlifeF/d; $m; }
take [$my{love},$my{land}];
take \$me,$I{cannot_stand};
$I{dont_care}, $I=still_free;
take sky;
take \$me,$the_black;
warn them "I ain't coming back\n";
$land{burn} and $sea{boil};
take sky;
$I=~/[Serenity]/ and $I{can_be}="no place";
take sky;
|
Re: Firefly
by japhy (Canon) on Nov 10, 2005 at 20:06 UTC
|
Firefly (and Serenity) rocked. I saw the movie before the series, and it got me hooked. "Joss Whedon is my master now"
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |
|
|
Just to be a vocal counterpoint, I hated Firefly, and probably for the same reason I hated Babylon 5 and the current Battlestar Galactica (not the original), and Voyager, and soap operas in general. (And probably Buffy, although I never started watching Buffy.)
The story arcs are too long.
I want my excitement to climax in 50 pages, and then conclude. Even two parters frustrate me.
I find it odd that I'm on the opposite side of the fence from the "MTV-Generation". They like the long story arcs, but they want videos cut every four seconds and shaky-cam handheld shots. I want good one-hour dramas, and nice decent photography.
| [reply] |
|
|
Interesting. I guess you must have really hated the LOTR movies then ;-)?
For me, if there's one complaint I have about Firefly it's that it still clings to the one-story-per-episode type format. Sure, there are longer background story arcs in there, but the main "adventure" is always just one episode long. I'd have preferred the approach they had with the old Doctor Who shows where you never really knew whether the story would end in half an hour or four weeks. Adds more suspense :-). To each his own.
Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it. -- Brian W. Kernighan
| [reply] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think that it is very much a personal preference as I enjoy both short and long stories, but I can very much live without the shaky-cam. It's become a naff cliche. Now if they could get people to direct true science fiction films with the skill, seriousness and gravitas of Ang Lee's direction of "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" I'd be a happy camper.
Elgon
It is better either to be silent, or to say things of more value than silence. Sooner throw a pearl at hazard than an idle or useless word; and do not say a little in many words, but a great deal in a few.
Pythagoras (582 BC - 507 BC)
| [reply] |
|
|
|
|
Re: Firefly
by wolfger (Deacon) on Nov 11, 2005 at 15:05 UTC
|
Very nice. Too bad you had to change "You can't take the sky from me" to "take sky" though... Still ++.
| [reply]
[d/l] |
|
|
Thanks for the comment and upvote! Take a look at the take subroutine. It returns "You can't take the sky from me" when called as take sky, but otherwise puts the thing taken into the recipient. It doesn't do anything with the output, because otherwise you'd have this printed out three times around the other output, which felt ugly. Seemed appropriate to me ;-).
Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it. -- Brian W. Kernighan
| [reply]
[d/l]
[select] |
|
|
"You can't take the sky from me." ... hrmm ... We can get creative here.
- If one takes Buber's I and Thou literally, "you" would be anything outside the program. In the context of Perl, that would be STDIN, STDOUT, @ARGV, ... and %ENV. As the first 2 are filehandles and the third is an array, let's work with %ENV.
- "take" is going to be a keyword in Perl6, but we don't have that yet. So, let's think about taking ... when you take from me, that is the same as removing something from my possession. We could use any number of functions that "take", like substr, chop/chomp, etc. The problem is representing the negation of these.
- The iconic representation of the program is $0, so we'll use that for "me". Now, if we tie me, we can override FETCH.
- Sky ... look below.
package Me;
TIESCALAR { bless \(my $x = $_[1]), $_[0] }
FETCH { die "cannot take it away" }
package main;
tie $0, Me;
eval { $ENV{'you'} = $0 =~ s/sky//; 1 } || print $@;
My criteria for good software:
- Does it work?
- Can someone else come in, make a change, and be reasonably certain no bugs were introduced?
| [reply]
[d/l] |
|
|
