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)
But you don’t need mandatory controls if you’re writing a God object either. You won’t understand the need for them until you try to do good OO design, just like a ten-liner can be written without strictures too. Access controls are just another aspect of the sort of design you are talking about.
Re:What is scrottie code? (Score:1)
Quick recap.
1. I argued that Perl programmers could benefit from some time spent on OO design, and give thought to things like interfaces and which objects can see which other objects.
2. You object on the grounds that Perl doesn't need forced encapsulation.
3. I clarify that at no point in that point did I argue for forced encapsulation (though I did at another point, but at that point, I was talking about something else). I restate that, ignoring enforced encapsulation, Perl programmers don't do nearly as much reading on or thinking about design and they could benefit from more.
4. You retort that this isn't so, because Perl doesn't need forced encapsulation.
5. I recap [this post], wondering what the fuck.
Beyond a certain point (my clarification), you're just being stupid on purpose so you can keep arguing your conclusion and ignoring the logic that might get you there for the benefit of any wayward readers who can't be bothered to follow along but enjoy the conclusions as if they're proof of something. Trying to avoid you co-opting my blog for the purposes of stupidity turns into a time sink for me from which I cannot help to benefit.
Twit. Get out of my blog. Don't read it, don't post in it. Just go away. And change your nick, too. And if you ever come back here, I'm posting "A Thoughtful Essay on Why Aristotle [sic] is a Great Big Poopy Head".
If I'm going to waste my time clarifying repeatedly for those who who make effort _not_ to understand, let's make it personal.
-scott
-scott
Reply to This
Parent
Draft: Why Aristotle [sic] is a Great Big Poopy H (Score:1)
Every now and then, I post a disclaimer on my blog, saying that I will be extremely mean to anyone who doesn't follow the house rules. I know I can't impose them, but I can be quite mean. So, please don't do certain things on my blog. But first I ask people to go away. Aristotle [sic] made it to this point and continued on, all the while acting oblivious.
This isn't a discussion of whether Perl programmers could benefit from learning more about OO design as it was traditionally taught in the late 80's an
Re: (Score:1)
What? Where have I been saying that Perl does not need forced encapsulation? First I agreed with you, then I argued twice that Perl does need mandatory controls, and now you tell me I said the opposite. Did you even read what I was saying? Or did you immediately go crosseyed and started looking for a misinterpretation of what you said so you had some grounds to get pissed off again?
I agree that we have a case of someone being a twit here, but it ain’t me.
Re: (Score:1)
Crossed eyes? Perhaps. Let me re-read, in that case.
"Access controls are just another aspect of the sort of design you are talking about."
Okay, they're another aspect of it -- does this mean that good design is pointless because access controls are pointless (which is how I took it) or does it mean that, being a seperate aspect, they're simply related in some ways but not others, and if that's the case, what did I fail to read between the lines?
"I’m equally sick of the “no infatuation with enf
Re: (Score:1)
OK. I’m glad we got this sorted. :-)