NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.
All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report
--Mark Hahn, <hahn@neurocog.lrdc.pitt.edu>
Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.
What is scrottie code? (Score:1)
When I think of scrottie code, these are the characteristics that come to mind:
When I think of Java code, I think it's:
That's why I find it unusual that someone like you would find reasons to like Java. But if you like it, whatever.
I know that you don't actually code in it that much
Re: (Score:1)
That's key. I can take lots of stuff in small doses, and enjoy it. Just not PHP.
When writing Java, I used to use kaffe and jikes. Both are pretty small, and both are open source and support my old, slow hardware. jikes is extremely fast. kaffe only does 1.1ish or 1.2ish, but at the time you had to program down to that version anyway to support MS's fuxored Java version they distributed with IE. And then compared to Flash, which was barely progr
Re: (Score:1)
Yah [canonical.org].
Re: (Score:1)
No, actually... I intentionally avoided discussion of private, protected, public etc because of this essay. I said "interfaces" and "which classes can see each other", which is in reference not to hiding bits of themselves but simply who has references to who and what the basic topology of the application is. You can hardly invoke the "stay out of my livingroom not because I have a shotgun" argument to justify writing a God Object. Sometimes strong typing makes sense; aside from that, large projects need
Re: (Score:1)
Since you often complain about people failing to address the actual argument, I opted to moved all the incidental but off-topic quibbles to a second reply so they don’t get in the way of my real response.
Anyway, I wanted to nitpick the following statements:
I don’t like interfaces in particular. As seen in Java, they fall out of a confusion and conflation of language design goals. Traits/roles are a much superior concept.
But even as far as interfac
Re: (Score:1)
Alright, that was slightly better than I had hoped for but I'm unswayed with regards to whether I want to talk to you.
My comment was that Perl programmers should spend more time worrying about interfaces and the structure of the code; your retort was that interfaces are poorly implemented and Perl 6's traits and roles are better. That's great... but it's also completely off topic. The point wasn't "Java is better than Perl". That wasn't even the title of the essay. It seems to be a conclusion you slippe
Re:What is scrottie code? (Score:1)
Which I agreed with. And in the same breath I pointed to one of my posts in another place where I say that Perl programmers chanting “we prefer politeness not shotguns” is misguided, which I think of as being a sign of the same immaturity.
Wow, you found the start of my post (where I said all therein was just off-topic quibbling). :-)
No, I didn’t say that. Where did I say that? Can you quote me on that? I’d like to see what I wrote that could have been so severely misconstrued that you managed to read it so completely counterfactually.
Because contrarily, I agreed that they should – and wanted to add to that that they should also get over themselves and quit chanting “no shotguns”, something whose value they would more readily understand if they actually did good OO design. I never disagreed with what you said. I’m not sure how on earth you came to the conclusion that I was arguing against you.
When I say that doing design in the abstract is of limited use, I am not saying that it is of no use. What I am saying is that without rendering the design in code, you will put conceptual holes in it that you won’t be able to detect. Separating coding from design is a false dichotomy; you must never stop considering the implications of what you’re doing while coding. No amount of books will teach you this balance (but neither will any amount of blinthely piling code onto code until it “works”).
But anyway, that was incidental; I’m quibbling, not disagreeing.
And I never touched your argument about fluffy articles. FWIW, since the “plan to throw one away” phrase came up: I’ve seen it in an actual hardcopy rendition of the book it is from. Along with all the other writing that’s in the book. In a copy that’s mine. I hope that’s enough said.
You know, considering your past travails I have always been sympathetic despite your broken approach to people. I understand (as much as you can understand a stranger on the internet) where that came from, and found your bouts of abrasiveness almost charming more than off-putting.
And I can’t really leave (your posts will continue going into the journals feed and therefore show up in my feed reader) any more than you can ban me here.
But if after the above refutation of your needless huff-and-puffing you still don’t want me stopping by, hey, knock yourself out. I’m content to stay or to go.
Sorry to have tripped your knee.
Reply to This
Parent