On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 11:54:20PM -0600, Peter da Silva wrote: > On Dec 21, 2006, at 11:24 AM, David Cantrell wrote: > >A general purpose language which can't be used in different ways to > >solve different problems is not fit for purpose. > > In Perl, "there's more than one way to do it" does not mean "Perl can > be used in different ways to solve different problems", it means "Perl > has multiple redundant syntaxes for writing the exact same code to > solve the same problem for the same purpose". > > Allowing "if" and "unless" does not increase the expressive power of > Perl one jot not tittle. It just increases the complexity. But just to > make it really hateful, there's no way to write a "switch" statement in > Perl that doesn't step on some bit of syntax somewhere else in the > language.
Why stop at 'if' and 'unless'? Given a 'while', why bother having a 'for'? Heck, given 'goto' and 'if', why have any looping construct? Or is having a 'for' while having a 'while' ok because C has it, but having an 'unless' next to an 'if' not because Perl has it? If I wanted just one way of doing things, I would have joined the army, not get involved in computers. Abigail
pgpSxngCKN04Z.pgp
Description: PGP signature
