Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Don't ask to ask, just ask
 
PerlMonks  

Re: Better labeling of obfuscated code section

by dynamo (Chaplain)
on Aug 14, 2007 at 15:58 UTC ( [id://632530] : note . print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Better labeling of obfuscated code section

I agree that obfu's suck, at least outside of PerlMonger meetings and job interviews where they ask you to explain what they do (this can actually be pretty fun.)

But golfs are useful at times and shouldn't be lumped in. It's a very different process trying to make code unreadable to humans (obfus) than the process of trying to optimize for code size (golfs).

A golf is a refining process toward simplicity. A obfu is a refining process in the other direction.

Gentlemen prefer golfs.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Better labeling of obfuscated code section
by jZed (Prior) on Aug 14, 2007 at 16:08 UTC
    I agree that code that wins at golf is not necessarily obfuscated. But the game of golf has a goal contrary to best practices - to make the code shorter regardless of its impact on clarity. Best practice would be something like this: (short clear code)++ ... (short unclear code)--. Golf is like this: (short code)++.