@pjakobs@nixCraft Today’s #Perl will likely run yesterday's badly-written Bostic-compliant* code as well as today's well-written modern code.
So in a sense, Perl fails to see the difference too. But the good news is that you can get your job done with that old code without losing sleep porting it.
@mjgardner
I honestly like perl, it's a language that makes it easy to express a thought in working code.
The challenge is, that it might be much more difficult to extract that thought from the code later on if the writer of the code was not careful to take that into account. @nixCraft
“All of these [other programming languages like Lisp, Python, and Java] are ways of taking freedom away from the end user ‘for their own good.’ They’re just versions of Orwell’s Newspeak, in which it’s impossible to think bad thoughts.”
@mjgardner I look at it slightly different - since all my work is in open source, I consider myself as a temporary custodian of a project (whether it's one I have started or taken from other beginnings) and thus a good part of my creativity is spent on expressing my ideas such that future custodians can work with them, build on them and don't think I was a crazy madman taking to code with a pickaxe and superglue @mina@nixCraft
It is always a challenge to reuse existing code, once it surpasses a certain complexity.
I strongly believe in documentation and semantic naming. Once, I had a CTO who used to name every function, which would change something, "update", so his code was full of
o->update() [being o the reference to some object of some class].
The goodwill of the programmer makes the difference, not the language (leaving aside assembler).
@mina that can be legti, in my current project, I need to write a frontend using javascript (😮 ) and vue, one part is that I have multiple pinia "stores" (globally available structures that in my case represent the information gathered from a backend API endpoint). The all have a "fetchData()" and a "updateData()" function that essentially do the same thing (from an application point of view) to different data substructures. @mjgardner@nixCraft
@mina I think that's in fact a strength of OOP: the object can be looked at as the noun, the exposed functions as the verbs. If I have the same verb for multiple objects, I would assume that it does essentially the same thing within the context of the object.
But I guess one can push this to a point where it does not make sense anymore. @mjgardner@nixCraft
Add comment