Re: Announcing new scripting/prototyping language
From: Frank J. Lhota (NOSPAM.lhota.adarose_at_verizon.net)
Date: 02/06/04
- Next message: chris: "Re: what's the difference with the constructor"
- Previous message: Wes Batson: "Re: XML SAX parsing between the element tags"
- In reply to: Dan Pop: "Re: Announcing new scripting/prototyping language"
- Next in thread: Y2KYZFR1: "Re: Announcing new scripting/prototyping language"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 19:17:57 GMT
"Dan Pop" <Dan.Pop@cern.ch> wrote in message
news:c00men$rdu$8@sunnews.cern.ch...
> It is perfectly possible to write Perl code that is as readable as
> well written C code. And it is perfectly possible to write C code that
> is as unreadable as badly written Perl code.
>
> It's not the tool, it's the way it's used. Unfortunately, many Perl
> tutorials encourage conciseness at the expense of readability. I started
> to like Perl only when I realised that I don't have to follow the
> tutorial's examples in my own coding.
Good point. Even APL can be written in a readable fashion. (After all, APL
started as a documentation language!) A lot of the readability problems are
due more to the culture around programming languages, rather than the
limitations of the languages itself. One wonders how much obfuscated C might
have been avoided if introductory C texts did not present the following as
an acceptable way to copy a null-terminated string:
while( *s++ = *t++ )
;
- Next message: chris: "Re: what's the difference with the constructor"
- Previous message: Wes Batson: "Re: XML SAX parsing between the element tags"
- In reply to: Dan Pop: "Re: Announcing new scripting/prototyping language"
- Next in thread: Y2KYZFR1: "Re: Announcing new scripting/prototyping language"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|