[Gllug] More Microsoft patents

[Doug Winter]

On Wed 12 Feb Alain Williams wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2003 at 12:17:49PM +0000, Doug Winter wrote:
> > On Wed 12 Feb Andy Farnsworth wrote:
> > > > Perl's "write only" nature immediately rules it out as a serious
> > > > language for implementing a project, IMHO.
> > > 
> > > What do you mean by this statement?
> > 
> > It's impossible to read perl.  This is why I've stopped using it
> > completely.  Even my own code confuses the hell out of me.
> 
> I have to differ. You can create understandable AND inpenetrable code
> in any language.  The important thing is to make the strucuture of the
> program clear by good formatting & comments.

I think there is a fundamental difference in perl, which is to do with
the implied data storage.  Someone else (I can't remember who) made the
analogy with FORTH - because all the changes to data happen "off the
page" (in the case of FORTH, on the stack) you have to "run" the code
in your head. 

Most languages explicitly avoid this problem by only allowing named
variables, and using strict scoping rules.  These give the languages are
more verbose "narrative" quality that makes it far more maintainable.

Comments are, IMHO, a bit of a red herring in my view.   Code should be
understandable without them - comments are there to provide depth to
understanding and explain what is intended (which is not necessarily
what is achieved).  

If you have to put a line of comments for every line of code to explain
what it means, then that code is bad.

doug.

-- 
key 1024D/6973E2CF print 2C95 66AD 1596 37D2 41FC  609F 76C0 A4EC 6973 E2CF
http://www.britishsteal.com                             doug at pigeonhold.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 240 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.lug.org.uk/pipermail/gllug/attachments/20030212/e1bc07cd/attachment.pgp>