At 2003-06-12T20:16:40Z, Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Not this again. *sigh* The point is that it is far too simple in Perl to > write s'ghetti code.
Not this again, indeed. I find a lot of shell scripts incomprehensible, but you seem to like them. That's OK - it's your preference. Please understand that not everyone sees it the same way. > Furthermore it is far too simple for you to write what you may think is > "good code" and have another person who also has years of experience in > Perl have to stop, look and scratch their head at what you're doing. Go to http://www.honeypot.net/~kirk/projects/ and take a look at, say, "Antonym" or "Jail Management Software". If you can read C, you can read my code. I do *not* program in idiomatic Perl for the sole reason that I don't like to decipher idiomatic Perl, and I want to occasionally revisit my code, sometimes a year or more after I've last seen it. I can open either of those programs and see exactly what they're supposed to do. > It is because how you choose to do something might not be the idiom they > would have chosen to do the same thing. And while both may be equally > valid, correct and "good" because the two of you use two different forms > based on preference it can cause problems in maintenance. You're entitled to your opinion. I may not reflect on my experiences in any way, but you're still free to have it. My main point is that you *can't* say "X is easier to maintain than Y", because I can guarantee that Y's fans will completely disagree with you. I'd much rather have to maintain a legacy Perl program than anything in a shell language, but not that I have *not* blanketly stated that shell programming is bad, ugly, or unmaintainable. -- Kirk Strauser In Googlis non est, ergo non est.
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
