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: (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
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:What is scrottie code? (Score:1)
OK. I’m glad we got this sorted. :-)
Reply to This
Parent