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.
  • Only to a certain degree. Read The Shlemiel way of software [salon.com], a Salon interview with Joel Spolsky, he explains much better than I could (which is why I didn't originally answer). Choice quotation:

    [A]ll these people that are trying to make the same perpetual-motion machine where you just write your specification and it automatically becomes code don't realize that the specification has to be as detailed as the code in order to work.

    • There's a huge difference between what I am talking about and what Spolsky is talking about. He's talking about someone being able to generally specify something and have it just work. I'm talking about generally specifiying something and having the bulk of the code written to do it. 4GL languages suck because they ignore the complexity. Code generators rock because they take away the grunt work and all the programmer has to do is focus on the complexity.

      Read about code generators in Code Complete. T

      • Oh, I definitely agree on that. That's why I did qualify my statement with “only to a certain degree” rather than saying “yes” or “no”. :-) It can just be difficult to tell which end of the spectrum someone is aiming for; and unlike most people's, my biggest weakness is false hubris, so I'm always wary about that.