Siracusa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://www.slashdot.org/code.shtml
>
> It's a horror show, truly. Return values go unchecked, quoting
> operators are ignored, subroutine naming conventions are
> nonexistent, "use" statements are buried in subroutines as if
> they were runtime directives, etc. etc. Slashdot has much bigger
> problems than a lack of a "generic server" architecture, IMO ;)
>
I do have to agree, as one of the origional authors of Slash, the code
is horrific. On one hand (looking back) there were a lot of things
that /should have been better. On the other hand, it was written by a
relitive newbie to perl and a messed up C programmer who were both
drinking a lot...
Not that this is an excuse... :/
--
Dave DeMaagd - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - SysAdmin/Programmer - TheImageGroup
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular
error. -- John Kenneth Galbraith
