in reply to Some thoughts around the "is Perl code maintainable" discussion
Just my own two cents, but languages with richer operator and function sets tend to get the reputation for being "harder to maintain". Back in the days when Pascal was just out and cool, I heard arguments about how hard C was to read and maintain. C was a language richer in operators than Pascal and someone going from Pascal to C would have to go through the learning curve of dealing with the larger set of operators.
If you need a simpler example of this in operation, think APL.
When I asked a friend once why they chose Python for a development project, one comment in passing was that they could write Perl that they themselves wouldn't understand 3 months later. What this says to me is that as code grows complex, more effort should be spent in simplification and documentation.
Re^2: Some thoughts around the "is Perl code maintainable" discussion
by paddy3118 (Acolyte) on Aug 14, 2007 at 20:53 UTC
|
The main problem with C before ANSI-C was the lack of standardisation. Portability was an added burden, especially when several of the C compilers had their own methods of allowing mixing in assembler code.
For me, ANSI Standardisation was wonderful, and allowed me to move from Pascal to (ANSI), C as my preferred programming language. | [reply] |
|