At 08:27 AM 8/27/01 -0600, Rob Waggoner wrote:
>If this is not an appropriate place to wax philosophic about perl, let me
>know and I will take my questions else where.
I think it's fine. You might get a little more informed response from
comp.lang.perl.moderated.
>I'm curious to hear from others who have worked with perl and other
>programming/scripting languages. More specifically I'm curious as to how
>those "other" languages either affect your perl development, or how perl
>affects development in the other language.
>
>This "curiosity" arises from perls "If it feels good, do it" attitude
>which is counter to my traditional B.S.C.S. training of "no matter how
>good it feels, do it by the book (which is 30 years old)."
>
>An example of this comes from the Camel book which, in discussing loops,
>sates that it's o.k. to leave the (loop, sub, etc.) when ever you like. In
>fact, it's really o.k. to have several exit points from a block if it
>makes sense to do so (this caused a serious short circuit in my
>traditional mind).
Heh, I was trained the same way (single points of entry and exit to a
block). But you know, the only reason for that was that it was expected to
make the code easier to understand. At least in Perl, I no longer buy the
assumption that it always makes the code easier to understand. Frequently
it makes it harder to understand.
But the bottom line is that *you* get to define "easy to understand," and
if that means single exit from a block, then have at it. You can write the
same program in Perl to look like C, shell, LISP or Scheme if you want,
Perl is expressive enough to allow so many different styles. Whatever
makes the most sense in the environment you're developing in, do it.
--
Peter Scott
Pacific Systems Design Technologies
http://www.perldebugged.com
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
