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.
  • "For now, this only enables the strict and warnings pragmas, as well as all of the features available in Perl 5.10." It's like "use 5.10.0" with more characters! Awesome!

    • Which version of Perl are you running where use 5.10.0; also enables strictures and warnings? (It's certainly not the released version of 5.10, nor the packaged version in Ubuntu, nor bleadperl.)

      • I don't consider implicit strict and warnings a feature. If your program is big enough for them to be useful, those two extra lines are insignificant.

        • I don't consider implicit strict and warnings a feature.

          If you find no use from this module, I don't mind. I didn't write it for people who know precise cantrips and incantations to make Perl help them instead of allowing them to get themselves into trouble. I wrote it for people who are just learning Perl and haven't figured out yet all of the magic gobbledygook incantations to let Perl help them.

          You know what you're doing. I'm trying to give the other six and a half billion people a better chance.

          • "Magic gobbledygook?" Please. Don't insult your readers.

            If people want Java, they know where to find it. If they don't, this Perl-as-Java jihad is a waste of time.

            • Please. Don't insult your readers.

              Please don't quote me out of context. It's rude, and it leads you into strawman arguments which waste everyone's time.

              Do you remember being a novice programmer? Have you seen how they get treated in forums such as PerlMonks? If they haven't included use strict; use warnings; in their code, someone will invariable respond "I don't know how to solve your problem, but you should always use strict; use warnings;."

              Tell me -- how many novices understand what those do and why and how? For all the Perl hackers who rail against cargo-cult coding, there's sure a lot of cargo-cult recommending going on. By my estimation, you have to know about modules, pragmas, and importing before strict and warnings make any sense.

              It's funny that you bring up Java, though I have no idea what your point is. I've compared "Hello, world!" in Perl to Java recently. If you want to see magic gobbledygook in another language, ask a Java neophyte to explain public or static or class Main or System.out. sometime.

              At least with Perl we have the chance to abstract away some of that boilerplate so novices can't see it -- hence my confusion about what you mean about "Perl-as-Java".

              • Given that what you wrote appears directly above my reply, I'm not sure how I'm "quoting you out of context." You're welcome to explain.

                We're in violent agreement about the standard Perlmonks treatment -- chanting "use strict use warnings" at people in replies and sample code is unhelpful, and I've tried to make that point there in the past. Few novice programmers understand what strict and warnings do, but part of the process of becoming a non-novice is understanding these things. Simply adding boilerpl

                • You're welcome to explain.

                  Copied and pasted code that a novice has no mental framework to understand and will not understand without also understanding several fundamental concepts is magic gobbledygook. You can say "Just copy this around and don't change it and don't worry that you don't understand it," or try to explain it or make it unnecessary. I prefer the latter option.

                  I don't think Perl should become "Perl for dummies."

                  What part of Modern::Perl makes Perl more suitable for dummies? All of the

                  • >

                    I agree, which is why Modern::Perl's syntactic disguise of the former seems counterproductive. And if believing this makes me an "arrogant, pseudo-macho jerk" and/or a "Real Man," can I at least get a card or something?

                    • use.perl is even more of a bucket of FAIL than I thought -- "plain old text" sure ain't. Here's the bit I meant to include in angle quotes: "You can say "Just copy this around and don't change it and don't worry that you don't understand it," or try to explain it or make it unnecessary. I prefer the latter option."

                    • I agree, which is why Modern::Perl's syntactic disguise of the former seems counterproductive.

                      I wish it weren't necessary, but that requires either fixing p5p culture such that backwards-incompatible language improvements are possible or forking and promoting my own version of Perl 5. I'm not the person for either task.

                      At best, I can minimize the damage in a way that works right now with Perl 5.10 which is already out. There's no forking. There are no patches. No one has to recompile Perl. There are

                    • I wish it weren't necessary, but that requires either fixing p5p culture such that backwards-incompatible language improvements are possible or forking and promoting my own version of Perl 5.

                      To be honest, that would read "changing" and "changes," not "fixing" and "improvements." You want Perl to be one thing, while the P5P regulars want it to be something else. And the module would be "Chromatic's::Perl" (apologies twice over...;-), not "Modern::Perl."

                      No, but I can offer you an apology for that snideness