On Dec 22, 2006, at 7:07 AM, Yossi Kreinin wrote:
IMO, the semantics of the UNIX file I/O is a legitimate target.
When the thing that caused your problem was a shonky file system, not
the semantics of UNIX file I/O, the legitimate target is the shonky
file system that meant you had to for god
Peter da Silva wrote:
Where in that picture does the pile-on in Yossi's thread about
filesystem semantics fit in?
Redirecting hate to legitimate targets.
IMO, the semantics of the UNIX file I/O is a legitimate target. Moreover, the
very fact that one must delve into a bigger shitload of s
On Dec 22, 2006, at 12:39 AM, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
Defending things is off-topic, and casting valid sources of
hatred as personal distaste is not impressive.
Where in that picture does the pile-on in Yossi's thread about
filesystem semantics fit in?
Redirecting hate to legitimate targets. For
On Dec 22, 2006, at 1:31 AM, jrod...@hate.spamportal.net wrote:
On Fri, Dec 22, 2006 at 01:16:33AM -0500, Chris Devers wrote:
On Dec 22, 2006, at 1:05 AM, Peter da Silva wrote:
[...] Perl [...]
Out of curiosity, at what point can we take it as "established" that
you just. don't. like. Perl
On Fri, Dec 22, 2006 at 07:39:01AM +0100, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
> * jrod...@hate.spamportal.net [2006-12-22
> 07:35]:
> > On Fri, Dec 22, 2006 at 01:16:33AM -0500, Chris Devers wrote:
> > > On Dec 22, 2006, at 1:05 AM, Peter da Silva wrote:
> > >
> > > >[...] Perl [...]
> > >
> > > Out of curiosi
* jrod...@hate.spamportal.net [2006-12-22 07:35]:
> On Fri, Dec 22, 2006 at 01:16:33AM -0500, Chris Devers wrote:
> > On Dec 22, 2006, at 1:05 AM, Peter da Silva wrote:
> >
> > >[...] Perl [...]
> >
> > Out of curiosity, at what point can we take it as
> > "established" that you just. don't. lik
On Fri, Dec 22, 2006 at 01:16:33AM -0500, Chris Devers wrote:
> On Dec 22, 2006, at 1:05 AM, Peter da Silva wrote:
>
> >[...] Perl [...]
>
> Out of curiosity, at what point can we take it as "established" that
> you just. don't. like. Perl. Hm?
This is we-hates. We're supposed to hate things.
On Dec 22, 2006, at 1:05 AM, Peter da Silva wrote:
[...] Perl [...]
Out of curiosity, at what point can we take it as "established" that
you just. don't. like. Perl. Hm?
100 messages?
500?
More?
I'm just curious when to stop skimming, thanks :-)
--
Chris Devers
On Dec 21, 2006, at 12:47 PM, David Cantrell wrote:
On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 10:52:39AM -0600, Peter da Silva wrote:
In Perl, a "/" may be an operator or a literal terminator. That would
be like making +" the string concatenation operator in C. In any other
language you'd be laughed out of the st
On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 10:52:39AM -0600, Peter da Silva wrote:
> In Perl, a "/" may be an operator or a literal terminator. That would
> be like making +" the string concatenation operator in C. In any other
> language you'd be laughed out of the standards committee for proposing
> such a thing.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2006 at 03:02:34PM +, Robert Rothenberg wrote:
> Why does any discussion about programming languages eventually degenerate
> into bickering about Perl?
Because it's an easy target and so attracts the vast majority that are
poor shots.
--
David Cantrell | London Perl Mongers
On Sun, Dec 17, 2006 at 02:44:29AM +0100, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
> No longer, if you ask it not to; although I wish they hadn't
> fixed that because the mere concept of English.pm is an
> abomination.
So I take it you don't want me to release French.pm then?
> > I could go on, getting in to the sor
> I'm not sure I understand, because what I'm reading doesn't make
> any sense. Are you actually saying that every character should
> have only a single meaning in any possible context?
I'm saying every token should have only a single meaning in any given
context, and that the set of characters de
* t...@tmtm.com [2006-12-18 17:55]:
> It might confuse people on first encounter, but no more so than
> an empty string heredoc, which I find equally hateful/nice:
>
> my $sth = $dbh->prepare(<<'');
> select foo, bar
> from baz
> where duh = ?
>
> $sth->execute(...);
That's hateful for
* Peter da Silva [2006-12-18 17:55]:
> In Perl, a "/" may be an operator or a literal terminator. That
> would be like making +" the string concatenation operator in C.
> In any other language you'd be laughed out of the standards
> committee for proposing such a thing. Perl hackers violently
> de
> I once attended the presentation of the end-work of someone getting a high
> university degree, and though I loved the presentation and the discussions
> that it caused, and I could understand every word and syntactically used
> language construct, I didn't understand a single syllable of the who
> Once complex structures appear in a language, it takes a trained eye to see
> to real meaning, and replacing metacharacters or tokens with written words
> does NOT easy that concept. It just makes you have to read more.
But replacing small groups of metacharacters and words with single
metachara
> Once complex structures appear in a language, it takes a trained eye to see
> to real meaning, and replacing metacharacters or tokens with written words
> does NOT easy that concept. It just makes you have to read more.
But replacing small groups of metacharacters and words with single
metachara
On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 12:26:14PM +, Earle Martin wrote:
> On 17/12/06, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
>> 1. It is not the same, as now the semi-colon is included in the
>> statement
>
> OH NOES TEH SEMI COLON!!1
>
> So take it out.
Ah, but the entire point was that if you use this idiom the semi-col
Abigail wrote:
> > In Perl the rule is: If its an alpha-numeric char then escaping it
> > turns it into a meta pattern. If its non-alpha then escaping it turns
> > it into a literal. The latter rule is hard, and afaik applies to every
> > Perl. Hatefully tho perl will treat an unknown escape-alph
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 12:26:14 +, "Earle Martin"
wrote:
> On 17/12/06, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
> > 1. It is not the same, as now the semi-colon is included in the statement
>
> OH NOES TEH SEMI COLON!!1
>
> So take it out.
>
> I would note that in the code you pasted, it wasn't immediately
>
On 17/12/06, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
1. It is not the same, as now the semi-colon is included in the statement
OH NOES TEH SEMI COLON!!1
So take it out.
I would note that in the code you pasted, it wasn't immediately
obvious that the semi-colon isn't included in the statement, and that,
my fri
On 12/18/06, Abigail wrote:
On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 12:47:58PM +0100, demerphq wrote:
> On 12/18/06, Abigail wrote:
> >On Sun, Dec 17, 2006 at 11:07:50PM -0800, Yoz Grahame wrote:
> >> On 12/17/06, Robert Rothenberg wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Bad comparison: traditional regexps are much easier to rea
On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 12:47:58PM +0100, demerphq wrote:
> On 12/18/06, Abigail wrote:
> >On Sun, Dec 17, 2006 at 11:07:50PM -0800, Yoz Grahame wrote:
> >> On 12/17/06, Robert Rothenberg wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Bad comparison: traditional regexps are much easier to read than the
> >ones
> >> >used
On Sun, Dec 10, 2006 at 12:08:58PM +0200, Yossi Kreinin wrote:
> All is well as long as one uses #!/bin/env tcsh in all scripts (the forked
> kind, not the sourced kind). Which is not always the case.
You would have thought so wouldn't you, but ...
$ ls /bin/env
ls: /bin/env: No such file or di
On 12/18/06, Abigail wrote:
On Sun, Dec 17, 2006 at 11:07:50PM -0800, Yoz Grahame wrote:
> On 12/17/06, Robert Rothenberg wrote:
> >
> >Bad comparison: traditional regexps are much easier to read than the ones
> >used in contemporary programming languages.
>
> PCRE-style regexp in Javascript:
>
On Sun, Dec 17, 2006 at 11:07:50PM -0800, Yoz Grahame wrote:
> On 12/17/06, Robert Rothenberg wrote:
> >
> >Bad comparison: traditional regexps are much easier to read than the ones
> >used in contemporary programming languages.
>
> PCRE-style regexp in Javascript:
> regexp = /(\d{1,3}\.){3}\d{1,
Nicholas Clark did write:
On Sun, Dec 17, 2006 at 07:16:52PM +0100, demerphq wrote:
[...]
To me using the ancient regexp syntax that emacs uses is about as
sensible as it would be to provide all the config and help pages in
15th century English.
Oh. So that's what info pages are! I never kn
On Sun, Dec 17, 2006 at 07:16:52PM +0100, demerphq wrote:
> On 12/17/06, Robert Rothenberg wrote:
> >I rather hate that I do have to learn annoying (and inconsistent)
> >differences between regexp implementations in different applications, for
> >example, Perl vs Emacs regexps.
>
> Well, the two
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 20:27:20 +, Robert Rothenberg
wrote:
> On 17/12/06 18:16 demerphq wrote:
> > On 12/17/06, Robert Rothenberg wrote:
> >> On 17/12/06 08:52 Dave Hodgkinson wrote:
> >>
> >> > Reach for the root cause: regexps themselves are hateful. Nasy,
> >> > cryptic line noise.
> >>
> >
On 12/17/06, Robert Rothenberg wrote:
Bad comparison: traditional regexps are much easier to read than the ones
used in contemporary programming languages.
PCRE-style regexp in Javascript:
regexp = /(\d{1,3}\.){3}\d{1,3}/;
Traditional POSIX regexp in C:
char regexp[] = "\\([:digit:]\{1,3\}\\
On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 05:04:23PM +0100, demerphq wrote:
> $"="whatever array seperator i choose";
> $,="whatever print argument seperator i choose";
> > [...]
> Still confused here. How is the behaviour complex again?
> [...]
> perl -Mre=debug -e "/just|another|perl|hacker/"
"[My] grievance is n
demerphq writes:
> On 12/17/06, Peter da Silva wrote:
[...]
>> Well, except for Forth. Or maybe Lisp. And I'll bet Bourne could have
>> come pretty damn close with "C" macros... look at BOURNEGOL for
>> evidence.
>
> Hmm, I didn't realize that either allowed their syntax to be extended
> to sup
On 17/12/06 18:16 demerphq wrote:
> On 12/17/06, Robert Rothenberg wrote:
>> On 17/12/06 08:52 Dave Hodgkinson wrote:
>>
>> > Reach for the root cause: regexps themselves are hateful. Nasy,
>> > cryptic line noise.
>>
>> As has been said in another message, regexps are their own language,
>> which
Robert Rothenberg skribis 2006-12-17 15:02 (+):
> Why does any discussion about programming languages eventually degenerate
> into bickering about Perl?
> There are so many more hateful programming languages. Take Visual Basic
Perl is the ultimate target for programming language hate, beca
On Dec 17, 2006, at 1:29 PM, demerphq wrote:
Its about brevity. Plain and simple. I don't want to write a bunch of
useless text when I do something as common as perform a pattern match.
That's why people use reflective languages like Forth and Lisp and
Smalltalk, so when you do a lot of anythi
On 12/17/06, Peter da Silva wrote:
On Dec 17, 2006, at 12:05 PM, demerphq wrote:
>> string.replace("^file:///?","");
> No. It. Shouldnt. HATE. I've written just enough pattern matching
> code in languages requiring such a stinky syntax to know that it SUCKS
> THE WANG REALLY FUCKING BI
* demerphq [2006-12-17 19:55]:
> >> On 12/17/06, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
> >> >Regular expressions are a language in their own right; they
> >> >should at least have their own kind of literal. Even Perl
> >> >5 is not consistent enough in this regard.
>
> Im probably being thick, but i dont see the c
On Dec 17, 2006, at 12:32 PM, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
* Peter da Silva [2006-12-17 19:05]:
On Dec 17, 2006, at 11:08 AM, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
Agreed. After all, it's roughly a cross between Self and
Perl...
It's more like a C-styled version of Self, without the
Smalltalk/Self dependance on the G
On 12/17/06, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
* demerphq [2006-12-17 19:10]:
> On 12/17/06, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
> >Regular expressions are a language in their own right; they
> >should at least have their own kind of literal. Even Perl 5 is
> >not consistent enough in this regard.
>
> Got an example?
On Dec 17, 2006, at 12:05 PM, demerphq wrote:
string.replace("^file:///?","");
No. It. Shouldnt. HATE. I've written just enough pattern matching
code in languages requiring such a stinky syntax to know that it SUCKS
THE WANG REALLY FUCKING BIG TIME.
Nobody who likes Perl has any sta
* demerphq [2006-12-17 19:10]:
> On 12/17/06, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
> >Regular expressions are a language in their own right; they
> >should at least have their own kind of literal. Even Perl 5 is
> >not consistent enough in this regard.
>
> Got an example?
In the culture of computing, regex
* Peter da Silva [2006-12-17 19:05]:
> On Dec 17, 2006, at 11:08 AM, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
> >Agreed. After all, it's roughly a cross between Self and
> >Perl...
>
> It's more like a C-styled version of Self, without the
> Smalltalk/Self dependance on the GUI and snapshots. What of
> Perl has seepe
On 12/17/06, Robert Rothenberg wrote:
On 17/12/06 08:52 Dave Hodgkinson wrote:
> Reach for the root cause: regexps themselves are hateful. Nasy,
> cryptic line noise.
As has been said in another message, regexps are their own language, which
has origins in theoretical computer science and math
On 12/17/06, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
Regular expressions are a language in their own right; they
should at least have their own kind of literal. Even Perl 5 is
not consistent enough in this regard.
Got an example?
--
perl -Mre=debug -e "/just|another|perl|hacker/"
On 12/17/06, Peter da Silva wrote:
On Dec 16, 2006, at 7:44 PM, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
>> I could go on, getting in to the sorts of hate that Perl
>> enables - s;foo;bar; anyone?
> That's annoying, but do you find the following pretty?
> s/^file:\/\/\/?//
Neither is acceptable.
It should be
On Dec 17, 2006, at 11:08 AM, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
Agreed. After all, it's roughly a cross between Self and Perl...
It's more like a C-styled version of Self, without the Smalltalk/Self
dependance on the GUI and snapshots. What of Perl has seeped into it
has largely been the stuff that Perl bo
On 17/12/06 08:52 Dave Hodgkinson wrote:
> Reach for the root cause: regexps themselves are hateful. Nasy,
> cryptic line noise.
As has been said in another message, regexps are their own language, which
has origins in theoretical computer science and mathematics. Like most
expressions in mathem
* Peter da Silva [2006-12-17 15:30]:
> I think that Javascript has been unfairly maligned... it's
> tainted by association with the browser mess. As a programming
> language it's remarkably well designed.
Agreed. After all, it's roughly a cross between Self and Perl...
with Self being basically a
A. Pagaltzis wrote:
* Michael Leuchtenburg [2006-12-16 19:05]:
What is this, loves-perl? Release your anger, your hate!
Yes, well. In another subthread, Abigail accused me of defending
Perl when all I did was ask Peter for clarification about his
gripes; *this* part of the thread is what a pi
Why does any discussion about programming languages eventually degenerate
into bickering about Perl?
There are so many more hateful programming languages. Take Visual Basic
On 16/12/06 22:17 Peter da Silva wrote:
> On Dec 16, 2006, at 1:07 PM, Juerd wrote:
>> Michael Leuchtenburg skribis 200
On Dec 17, 2006, at 4:26 AM, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
my $sth = $dbh->prepare (qq;
select foo, bar
from baz
where duh = ?;
);
BAD idea, because semicolons are semantically meaningful in SQL. As
soon as you have a more complex block you're hosed. And since double
quotes are rar
On Dec 17, 2006, at 3:45 AM, Dominic Mitchell wrote:
Oh sure, reach for the easy target. Hating regexes is easy because
they look weird.
One solution is to make regexps part of the language syntax rather than
literals. Griswold's languages SNOBOL and Icon come closest to doing
this, in diffe
On Dec 17, 2006, at 1:12 AM, David King wrote:
AppleScript was designed for this sort of localisation
Applescript's "language-like" syntax is possibly even more hateful than
Perl's. It's dripping a slightly different KIND of foul evil, but it's
evil never the less.
http://daringfireball.net
On Dec 16, 2006, at 10:20 PM, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
Whatever you think the substitution API should be (and I'm not
a huge fan of Perl's), putting patterns into simple string
literals is hateful.
There's no alternative. Either they're strings and can be manipulated
as strings, or they're not.
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 12:42:41 +, "Earle Martin"
wrote:
> On 17/12/06, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
> > my $sth = $dbh->prepare (qq;
> > select foo, bar
> > from baz
> > where duh = ?;
> > );
> >
> > Now you can cut-n-paste the statement and run in SQL :)
> > And it reads nice too
Earle Martin skribis 2006-12-17 12:40 (+):
> And worse yet, " " (a space) is also valid. Making this possible:
> http://beta.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.fwp/2006/09/msg3947.html
Space is not a valid delimiter. It is an optional thing that you can
place between operator name and the first delimite
On 17/12/06, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
Secondly, quotes are so frequently part of a pattern that using
them as delimiters for patterns is even worse than using forward
slashes; backslashes galore.
s{foo"/"/"/}{foo};
or perhaps
s(foo"/"/"/)(foo);
Paired delimiters are my friends and help make rege
On 17/12/06, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
my $sth = $dbh->prepare (qq;
select foo, bar
from baz
where duh = ?;
);
Now you can cut-n-paste the statement and run in SQL :)
And it reads nice too
That's a little hacky for my tastes.
my $sth = $dbh->prepare(<<'END_SQL');
select fo
On Sun, 2006-12-17 at 11:26 +0100, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
> No. Very handy.
>
> my $sth = $dbh->prepare (qq;
> select foo, bar
> from baz
> where duh = ?;
> );
>
> Now you can cut-n-paste the statement and run in SQL :)
> And it reads nice too
This is exactly the sort of thing
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 02:44:29 +0100, "A. Pagaltzis" wrote:
> * Michael Leuchtenburg [2006-12-16 19:05]:
> > What is this, loves-perl? Release your anger, your hate!
> > :
> > I could go on, getting in to the sorts of hate that Perl
> > enables - s;foo;bar; anyone?
>
> That's annoying, but do you
Dave Hodgkinson wrote:
Reach for the root cause: regexps themselves are hateful. Nasy,
cryptic line noise.
Oh sure, reach for the easy target. Hating regexes is easy because they
look weird. Wait until you try string processing in Java where some
lunkhead only knows about "substr" and "inde
On 17 Dec 2006, at 04:20, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
Whatever you think the substitution API should be (and I'm not
a huge fan of Perl's), putting patterns into simple string
literals is hateful.
Reach for the root cause: regexps themselves are hateful. Nasy,
cryptic line noise.
--
Dave Hodgkinson
While I can understand the problem for non-native english speakers
it's an endemic problem to any software at that level (as opposed
to the UI level). I am not aware of any language that's translated
in this way (although there's bound to be at least one, please
correct me).
AppleScript w
* Peter da Silva [2006-12-17 03:15]:
> On Dec 16, 2006, at 7:44 PM, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
> >>I could go on, getting in to the sorts of hate that Perl
> >>enables - s;foo;bar; anyone?
>
> >That's annoying, but do you find the following pretty?
>
> >s/^file:\/\/\/?//
>
> Neither is acceptable.
On Dec 16, 2006, at 7:44 PM, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
I could go on, getting in to the sorts of hate that Perl
enables - s;foo;bar; anyone?
That's annoying, but do you find the following pretty?
s/^file:\/\/\/?//
Neither is acceptable.
It should be something like
string.replace("
* Michael Leuchtenburg [2006-12-16 19:05]:
> What is this, loves-perl? Release your anger, your hate!
Yes, well. In another subthread, Abigail accused me of defending
Perl when all I did was ask Peter for clarification about his
gripes; *this* part of the thread is what a pile-on in defence of
Pe
Abigail writes:
> One of the things I loathe most about Perl are its communities drawing
> up arbitrary "standards" and whining like there's no tomorrow if someones
> code doesn't follow todays fad in that specific community.
>
> Perlmonks must be the best thing that happened to Python.
OMG! You
On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 08:07:35PM +0100, Juerd wrote:
>
> Perl doesn't encourage or discourage anything. That's partly why so many
> Perl programmers write horrible code: bad programming isn't discouraged,
> and good programming isn't encouraged. Fortunately, bad programming
> isn't encouraged, a
On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 01:01:12PM -0500, Michael Leuchtenburg wrote:
>
> I could go on, getting in to the sorts of hate that Perl enables -
> s;foo;bar; anyone? -
Ah, well, you gotta love a language where
for (s;s;s;s;s;s;s;s;s;s;s;s) {}
is legal (and called a 'C-style for loop').
;-)
On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 05:36:15PM +0100, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
> * Abigail [2006-12-16 09:55]:
> > It's even more hateful that $" is a global variable and you
> > can't put it in a namespace, or localize it. (And for the Perl
> > weenies out there: local has its own list of hate).
>
> That had me
On Dec 16, 2006, at 1:07 PM, Juerd wrote:
Michael Leuchtenburg skribis 2006-12-16 13:01 (-0500):
I hate the fucking useless "continue" blocks.
I don't like them either, but it's no problem because I just chose to
simply not use them.
I hate the way Perl leads people to say "I don't like $BA
Michael Leuchtenburg skribis 2006-12-16 13:01 (-0500):
> I hate the fucking useless "continue" blocks.
I don't like them either, but it's no problem because I just chose to
simply not use them.
I see very little code that uses them, and never use them myself.
In fact, I'd have to look it up in
What is this, loves-perl? Release your anger, your hate!
I've spent innumerable hours coding in Perl. If I was going to run off a
web app or a little daemon, I'd probably use Perl to do it. But you know
what?
I hate Perl.
I hate the fucking useless "continue" blocks. If I want to execute
somethi
On Dec 16, 2006, at 10:45 AM, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
(Although
I suppose it's much like what you said about POSIX sh: the
alternatives [to Perl 4] of that era were even more hateful.)
No, sir, that would not be an operative statement, sir.
POSIX sh was much later than the era I was talking about
* Peter da Silva [2006-12-16 14:35]:
> >When we were first taught programming (in Pascal), some
> >students complained the language was using English. The
> >professor responded that "computer languages don't use
> >English. They use arbitrary keywords that just happen to
> >resemble English words
* Abigail [2006-12-16 09:55]:
> It's even more hateful that $" is a global variable and you
> can't put it in a namespace, or localize it. (And for the Perl
> weenies out there: local has its own list of hate).
That had me boggling, so I checked. I'm not arguing the rest of
your points, but you *
* Double click on a .csv file
* Open the .csv file from File->Open
* Import data from file (most reliable)
Even in *quoted* data like ,"2","20061112","a", M$ decides that the
middle
value is 11 Dec 2006 using the first two methods. Localisation--
(US date system)--
Oh. My. God. Pardon me, I h
It's even more hateful that $" is a global variable and you can't put
it in a namespace, or localize it. (And for the Perl weenies out there:
local has its own list of hate).
my god;
Thank you for opening up a whole new steaming pool of hate that was
safely hidden away in a festering never-to-
When we were first taught programming (in Pascal), some students
complained the language was using English. The professor responded that
"computer languages don't use English. They use arbitrary keywords that
just happen to resemble English words".
Yes, but Perl's *different*, right? It's not on
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 20:09:48 -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> David Landgren wrote:
> > Martin Ebourne did write:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >> While I can understand the problem for non-native english speakers it's
> >> an endemic problem to any software at that level (as opposed to the UI
> >> le
On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 04:59:57PM +, Martin Ebourne wrote:
> "H.Merijn Brand" wrote:
> >As long as it takes? How would you think Dutch/Polish/French/Russian/...
> >would like to beat you back with all the `English' verbs in their script
> >that uses variable with native-language names?
>
> H
On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 10:33:09AM -0600, Peter da Silva wrote:
> > $"="whatever array seperator i choose";
>
> Any language (other than something like Forth, where there is only one
> syntactically significant character) in which that can possibly be a
> syntactically valid statement is corrupt b
David Landgren wrote:
> Martin Ebourne did write:
>
> [...]
>
>> While I can understand the problem for non-native english speakers it's
>> an endemic problem to any software at that level (as opposed to the UI
>> level). I am not aware of any language that's translated in this way
>> (althoug
Martin Ebourne did write:
[...]
While I can understand the problem for non-native english speakers it's
an endemic problem to any software at that level (as opposed to the UI
level). I am not aware of any language that's translated in this way
(although there's bound to be at least one, pleas
> As long as it takes? How would you think Dutch/Polish/French/Russian/...
> would like to beat you back with all the `English' verbs in their script
> that uses variable with native-language names?
>
> use English should never even have been invented. It should die a horrible
> death.
Amen, brot
> Quite the opposite. $" is both logic and can be remembered.
Surely that should be $
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:59:57 +, Martin Ebourne
wrote:
> "H.Merijn Brand" wrote:
> > As long as it takes? How would you think Dutch/Polish/French/Russian/...
> > would like to beat you back with all the `English' verbs in their script
> > that uses variable with native-language names?
>
> Ho
"H.Merijn Brand" wrote:
As long as it takes? How would you think Dutch/Polish/French/Russian/...
would like to beat you back with all the `English' verbs in their script
that uses variable with native-language names?
How long has perl allowed you to localise all the builtins?
And even if it d
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:38:31 +, Martin Ebourne
wrote:
> demerphq wrote:
> > $"="whatever array seperator i choose";
> > $,="whatever print argument seperator i choose";
>
> That makes me vomit every time.
>
> People who don't "use English" should be hit with a rubber mallet for
> as long
demerphq wrote:
$"="whatever array seperator i choose";
$,="whatever print argument seperator i choose";
That makes me vomit every time.
People who don't "use English" should be hit with a rubber mallet for
as long as it takes.
About the only hateful thing in this I can think of is that
> $"="whatever array seperator i choose";
Any language (other than something like Forth, where there is only one
syntactically significant character) in which that can possibly be a
syntactically valid statement is corrupt beyond all hope of redemption.
I *understand* what it's saying, and I *und
On 12/12/06, Daniel Pittman wrote:
Robert Rothenberg writes:
> On 11/12/06 23:12 Peter da Silva wrote:
One reason I'm down on Perl is that an awful lot of stuff that
I find hateful in the shell is stuff that Larry Wall faithfully
replicated in Perl
>>
>>> Such as?
>>
>> The t
On Dec 14, 2006, at 10:25 PM, Phil!Gregory wrote:
Everything in Perl is there for a reason.
Indeed. Sometimes stunningly hateful reasons, but reasons nevertheless.
* Peter da Silva [2006-12-12 10:56 -0600]:
> The problem with Perl is not that it doesn't make sense, because it does...
Everything in Perl is there for a reason. Which is a bit scary, if you
think about it.
--
...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/
PGP: 026A
> > Perl suffers from wanting to be any number of things, and by adding
> > extra complexity and indirection to achieve it. It guesses what you
> > want. It has stupid interpolation defaults, but you can't bypass them.
> There's a difference between hating software because it it doesn't make
> s
On 12/12/06 01:23 Daniel Pittman wrote:
> This is simple:
>
> format "~A ~A ~A" a-string an-array a-hash
>
> This is complex:
>
> print "$astring, @anarray, %ahash"
I consider the Perl way of doing things simpler, but that's because I'm used
to it. I don't think either way is more or less
* Abigail [2006-12-12 08:00]:
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 12:59:56AM +0100, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
>> * Peter da Silva [2006-12-12 00:15]:
> One reason I'm down on Perl is that an awful lot of stuff
> that I find hateful in the shell is stuff that Larry Wall
> faithfully replicated in Perl
On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 12:59:56AM +0100, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
> * Peter da Silva [2006-12-12 00:15]:
> > > > One reason I'm down on Perl is that an awful lot of stuff
> > > > that I find hateful in the shell is stuff that Larry Wall
> > > > faithfully replicated in Perl. Including stuff that other
Robert Rothenberg writes:
> On 11/12/06 23:12 Peter da Silva wrote:
One reason I'm down on Perl is that an awful lot of stuff that
I find hateful in the shell is stuff that Larry Wall faithfully
replicated in Perl
>>
>>> Such as?
>>
>> The things I mentioned several messages b
1 - 100 of 157 matches
Mail list logo
