[mdlug] Forget Perl, I'm switching to LOLCODE!

[Wolfger]

On 9/7/07, Robert Adkins <radkins at impelind.com> wrote:
>
>         Sentence structure is one of the most important aspects of
> communication.
>
>         Improper use of grammatical structures can and will cause
> considerable issues with communication.
>
>         I have bosses who clearly, honestly believe they are saying one
> thing, when the actual content of what they have written is going in the
> opposite direction.

Well, that's the beauty of computer languages. The computer is the
ultimate arbiter of whether or not you are speaking correctly, because
if you aren't, you won't get your desired result. (Bosses, also,
rarely get the desired result when they speak incorrectly...
unfortunately they consider themselves to by the last word in whether
or not they misspoke).
In the context of this conversation, the complaint is that the
structure (lack thereof, or possibility of multiple kinds of
structure) of Perl makes it difficult to read, which I disagree with.
If the code works, then the structure of the code is irrelevant. If
you can't read working code, then the problem is most likely your
level of fluency in the language, not the language itself. Of course,
there is deliberately obfuscated code.... but again, a sufficiently
fluent programmer can read even the most horribly obfuscated code. And
most code in a work or open source environment is not going to be
obfuscated. If it is, take that coder out back and shoot him. Don't
blame the language for allowing someone to be an arse, blame the arse.

> > Perl is a (the only?) computer language written by a
> > linguist. I personally find that to be a big plus.
>
>         This is probably the most perplexing aspect of what went into the
> design of Perl.
>
>         One would assume a linguist would be painfully aware of the issues
> apparent in mixing up grammatical structure. Apparently, that isn't always
> the case.
>
>         I really have to agree with Aaron on this point. I would illustrate
> this further, if I had additional time, by rewriting everything I have
> written in this email, ignoring and going against recognized grammar
> standards in order to obfuscate the message.

Well, let's take a Perl example. I can write "if (!x) { <do something>
}" or I can write "unless (x) { <do something> }" or "<do something>
unless (x)" or "<do something> if (!x)". Four entirely different ways
(and there's more) of accomplishing the same exact thing. I find all
of them to be perfectly readable. In fact, I think the most easily
readable line (at least, with a context-sensitive editor) is the least
conventional: <do> unless (x);

...and again, intentional obfuscation is a fault of the coder, not the language.


-- 
Wolfger
http://wolfger.wordpress.com/
AOL IM: wolf4coyot
Yahoo!Messenger: wolfgersilberbaer
Ekiga: wolfger