On 5/25/2011 7:52 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2011 17:30:48 -0400, theg...@nospam.net wrote:
On 5/24/2011 1:39 PM, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote: [snip]
One of my favorite quotes (not sure if it was about Perl or APL) is "I
refuse to use a programming language where the proponents of it stick
snippets under each other's nose and say 'I bet you can't guess what
this does.'"
I dunno. That sounds about like how most programming course exams are
written, no?
The point is that puzzling through arcane bits of code are crucial to
learning
any language. It's a valuable exercise.
You seem to miss the point that a good language shouldn't make it
possible to write arcane code that needs to be puzzled out.
You seem to be inventing a new point.
Try to stay focused please.
Perl hackers show each other arcane bits of code because such impractical
puzzle programs are good for learning.
Such puzzles can be created in any language. For example, I have had formal
coursework in a number of languages (Pascal, C++, ML, Scheme, and others)
and in each one an important exercise was to puzzle through arcane bits
of code
in each of those languages.
The post I was replying to seemed to question the value of such
'I bet you can't guess what this does.' type challenges.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
