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.
  • It's the same thing I ran into in linguistics: no-one wants to have a theory. Those are mundane and dull and too contintent on stupid stuff like facts (like whether [s] actually last a few milliseconds longer in words where it's a plural marker, or yawners like that). Instead, everyone wants to have a METAtheory, with a SPECIAL NEW NOTATION which is ostentatious and trendy, altho no-one will admit it. And if you don't have

    So it is with programming. No-one wants anything as mundane as a list, or a string, or a closure. They want a plastic fantastic wonderland of classes, and metaclasses, and factory factory factories, and UML, and class hierarchies CRAP [cpan.org].

    • Dang, that post of mine got partly munged when I pasted it in and posted it. Ahwell, just pretend it's coherent and perfectly spelled and grammatical.
    • They want a plastic fantastic wonderland of classes, and metaclasses, and factory factory factories, and UML, and class hierarchies CRAP.

      Heh. The UML reference reminds me of a funny incident that perfectly illustrates it. I was in a meeting with the "syntactic sugar" guy and our boss drew out a rough network diagram showing the various parts of of a system we were building. The boss making the drawing asked "did you get all of that?" and SyntacticSugarGuy replied "yes, but I drew it in UML."

      On the