Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
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

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • Evaluating the human readability of code (i.e. its aesthetics) by how close it is to some machine-generated format is just wrong.
    • I also believe that claiming a tidy file (as per Perl::Tidy) is more human readable is a too presumptuous statement. Sometimes perltidy bugs me too because I cannot make it fit exactly with my mental model of desirable code layout. But one thing it achieves: an automatic/objective way to determine a layout, cleaning gratuitous difference on code styles and fixing details like: avoiding tabs, enforcing cuddled elses everywhere, etc. And this is a good thing for large codebases, meant to be worked out by many developers (some of which we'll probably never have the chance of meeting personally).

      This is as silly as the dumbness of other automatic mechanisms for code evaluation: like perlcritics, kwalitee, and even some tests which may verify formal behavior that has few or nothing to do with the expectances of the users about its API (for example, that happens a lot with CPAN distributions whose major interface components are scripts with little or no test coverage, which instead concentrates on the modules around the scripts themselves).