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.
  • Comments make Perl unreadable, says Paul Graham

    I'm not fond of seeing such misleading attributions. I'll try to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you actually think this is what he is saying, but I have a difficult time seeing how you (or anyone) can come to that conclusion.

    If Paul had stated,

    The way to get rid of the stench of spoiled food in an apartment is not to spray a bunch of air freshner.

    Would it make sense to summarize it as follows?

    Air freshner makes apartments stink, say

    • His comment is that Perl is unreadable, and the end note to support that says that comments are an abomination. As I said in my post, I don't see how he connects the two. Either statement is fine by itself, but not together: hence, the title.

      Indeed it is poor logic, but it is what he uses to support that Perl is unreadable. I don't know why he connected those two. What do you think it means when he connects those two things?
      • His comment is that Perl is unreadable, and the end note to support that says that comments are an abomination.

        I don't think that's what he's saying at all (neither point, in fact). His point is that comments don't guarantee programs that are "written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute."

        Indeed it is poor logic, but it is what he uses to support that Perl is unreadable.

        I meant that your summary was poor logic. It's the classic logic problem. If A, then B. Does this mean

        • I understand logic so you don't need to explain it. I think Paul makes a leap in logic. That's my point. That's what I discuss in the post, and that's why I chose the title. It's ironic. See the title in the context of the post. It's not what he says, it's that he connects them. It's very clear in the post that I don't know what he's actually trying to say.

          The two statements I pulled out do not connect with each other, but Paul specifically and on purpose connects them. He's using one to support the o