Slashdot Mirror

If you don't believe me, ask the professionals. hates-software.com: the home of vitriol.

hmmm. Your own blog would suggest otherwise, it would seem anyway. You ardently defend here, but seem to take issue with respect, to the same issue in other areas.

http://www.taronga.com/~peter/io/apple2.html

"I am completely unable to imagine the confusion that must exist in your mind that would lead you to this assumption"

Hey, hey! My mind may be confused, but at least I am not holding my face wrong! http://peter.hates-software.com/ ;)

If you're a Perl programmer who doesn't know what Perl's weaknesses are yourself, and you have to ask me to spell them out for you, then you're an Incompetent Perl Programmer. You should have done that research yourself before deciding to use Perl. Shame on you! Put down the crack pipe and step away from the keyboard.

Incompetent Perl programmers who can't see or admit the flaws in their language are like the illegitimate president George W Bush who is out of touch with the harsh reality of Iraq and the economy, and therefore incapable of solving the problems. Incompetent Perl Programmers and Illegitimate US Presidents need to face the reality before they're qualified to solve the problems.

Aaron Weiss said: It's not a secret that Perl is structurally flexible, and the conventional wisdom is that Perl gives you "enough rope to hang yourself". Funny. But that's not the gripe -- go ahead, hang yourself if you want. That's freedom. The problem is that Perl also gives you enough rope to hang others."

Eric Naggum said: It's not that perl programmers are idiots, it's that the language rewards idiotic behavior in a way that no other language or tool has ever done.

Peter da Silva said: The syntax is awkward, overcomplex, has too many obscure special cases (there's to many obvious examples to list, I'll just mention one of the obscure ones: the way scalars and collections in for loops are treated), and the result is that you have to not just "know Perl" you have to be a Perl language lawyer just to avoid wandering into a dark alley and getting figuratively mugged by some cool feature.

Nicholas Clark said: That indirect object syntax is worthy of hate. (I think)

In the Switch documentation, Damian Conway said: BUGS: There are undoubtedly serious bugs lurking somewhere in code this funky :-) Bug reports and other feedback are most welcome. LIMITATIONS: Due to the heuristic nature of Switch.pm's source parsing, the presence of regexes specified with raw ?...? delimiters may cause mysterious errors. The workaround is to use m?...? instead. Due to the way source filters work in Perl, you can't use Switch inside an string eval.

Matt McLeod said: But the moment you try to anything properly, try to modularize and, you know, do perverted things like *reusing code*, it becomes a pain in the arse. One exciting feature I came across recently is that under certain circumstances you can create what seems like a module which exports a bunch of names, but if you don't start the name with an upper-case character it only exports the first. And it won't *tell* you this is what is going on (even with -w and use strict), it just whines that it can't find &main::foo() when it's supposed to be getting &thing::foo(). Don't even get me started on the flatten-all-arguments-into- a-list-of-scalars bullshit. Or the lack of any decent support in the basic language for datastructures other than lists. I'm sorry, walking through an array of arrays of hashrefs is not a substitute for a record/struct datatype, and having to fight it's alleged OO model to use a third-party "class" do what would be a simple job in anything else is completely not acceptable to me.

Lars Marius Garshol said: Casting of operands in comparisons: induced errors. Redefinition of some C keywords: walltrap. Overcomplexity 1: suffix condit

If you're a Perl programmer who doesn't know what Perl's weaknesses are yourself, and you have to ask me to spell them out for you, then you're an Incompetent Perl Programmer. You should have done that research yourself before deciding to use Perl. Shame on you! Put down the crack pipe and step away from the keyboard.

Incompetent Perl programmers who can't see or admit the flaws in their language are like the illegitimate president George W Bush who is out of touch with the harsh reality of Iraq and the economy, and therefore incapable of solving the problems. Incompetent Perl Programmers and Illegitimate US Presidents need to face the reality before they're qualified to solve the problems.

Aaron Weiss said: It's not a secret that Perl is structurally flexible, and the conventional wisdom is that Perl gives you "enough rope to hang yourself". Funny. But that's not the gripe -- go ahead, hang yourself if you want. That's freedom. The problem is that Perl also gives you enough rope to hang others."

Eric Naggum said: It's not that perl programmers are idiots, it's that the language rewards idiotic behavior in a way that no other language or tool has ever done.

Peter da Silva said: The syntax is awkward, overcomplex, has too many obscure special cases (there's to many obvious examples to list, I'll just mention one of the obscure ones: the way scalars and collections in for loops are treated), and the result is that you have to not just "know Perl" you have to be a Perl language lawyer just to avoid wandering into a dark alley and getting figuratively mugged by some cool feature.

Nicholas Clark said: That indirect object syntax is worthy of hate. (I think)

In the Switch documentation, Damian Conway said: BUGS: There are undoubtedly serious bugs lurking somewhere in code this funky :-) Bug reports and other feedback are most welcome. LIMITATIONS: Due to the heuristic nature of Switch.pm's source parsing, the presence of regexes specified with raw ?...? delimiters may cause mysterious errors. The workaround is to use m?...? instead. Due to the way source filters work in Perl, you can't use Switch inside an string eval.

Matt McLeod said: But the moment you try to anything properly, try to modularize and, you know, do perverted things like *reusing code*, it becomes a pain in the arse. One exciting feature I came across recently is that under certain circumstances you can create what seems like a module which exports a bunch of names, but if you don't start the name with an upper-case character it only exports the first. And it won't *tell* you this is what is going on (even with -w and use strict), it just whines that it can't find &main::foo() when it's supposed to be getting &thing::foo(). Don't even get me started on the flatten-all-arguments-into- a-list-of-scalars bullshit. Or the lack of any decent support in the basic language for datastructures other than lists. I'm sorry, walking through an array of arrays of hashrefs is not a substitute for a record/struct datatype, and having to fight it's alleged OO model to use a third-party "class" do what would be a simple job in anything else is completely not acceptable to me.

Lars Marius Garshol said: Casting of operands in comparisons: induced errors. Redefinition of some C keywords: walltrap. Overcomplexity 1: suffix condit

If you're a Perl programmer who doesn't know what Perl's weaknesses are yourself, and you have to ask me to spell them out for you, then you're an Incompetent Perl Programmer. You should have done that research yourself before deciding to use Perl. Shame on you! Put down the crack pipe and step away from the keyboard.

Incompetent Perl programmers who can't see or admit the flaws in their language are like the illegitimate president George W Bush who is out of touch with the harsh reality of Iraq and the economy, and therefore incapable of solving the problems. Incompetent Perl Programmers and Illegitimate US Presidents need to face the reality before they're qualified to solve the problems.

Aaron Weiss said: It's not a secret that Perl is structurally flexible, and the conventional wisdom is that Perl gives you "enough rope to hang yourself". Funny. But that's not the gripe -- go ahead, hang yourself if you want. That's freedom. The problem is that Perl also gives you enough rope to hang others."

Eric Naggum said: It's not that perl programmers are idiots, it's that the language rewards idiotic behavior in a way that no other language or tool has ever done.

Peter da Silva said: The syntax is awkward, overcomplex, has too many obscure special cases (there's to many obvious examples to list, I'll just mention one of the obscure ones: the way scalars and collections in for loops are treated), and the result is that you have to not just "know Perl" you have to be a Perl language lawyer just to avoid wandering into a dark alley and getting figuratively mugged by some cool feature.

Nicholas Clark said: That indirect object syntax is worthy of hate. (I think)

In the Switch documentation, Damian Conway said: BUGS: There are undoubtedly serious bugs lurking somewhere in code this funky :-) Bug reports and other feedback are most welcome. LIMITATIONS: Due to the heuristic nature of Switch.pm's source parsing, the presence of regexes specified with raw ?...? delimiters may cause mysterious errors. The workaround is to use m?...? instead. Due to the way source filters work in Perl, you can't use Switch inside an string eval.

Matt McLeod said: But the moment you try to anything properly, try to modularize and, you know, do perverted things like *reusing code*, it becomes a pain in the arse. One exciting feature I came across recently is that under certain circumstances you can create what seems like a module which exports a bunch of names, but if you don't start the name with an upper-case character it only exports the first. And it won't *tell* you this is what is going on (even with -w and use strict), it just whines that it can't find &main::foo() when it's supposed to be getting &thing::foo(). Don't even get me started on the flatten-all-arguments-into- a-list-of-scalars bullshit. Or the lack of any decent support in the basic language for datastructures other than lists. I'm sorry, walking through an array of arrays of hashrefs is not a substitute for a record/struct datatype, and having to fight it's alleged OO model to use a third-party "class" do what would be a simple job in anything else is completely not acceptable to me.

Lars Marius Garshol said: Casting of operands in comparisons: induced errors. Redefinition of some C keywords: walltrap. Overcomplexity 1: suffix condit

If you're a Perl programmer who doesn't know what Perl's weaknesses are yourself, and you have to ask me to spell them out for you, then you're an Incompetent Perl Programmer. You should have done that research yourself before deciding to use Perl. Shame on you! Put down the crack pipe and step away from the keyboard.

Incompetent Perl programmers who can't see or admit the flaws in their language are like the illegitimate president George W Bush who is out of touch with the harsh reality of Iraq and the economy, and therefore incapable of solving the problems. Incompetent Perl Programmers and Illegitimate US Presidents need to face the reality before they're qualified to solve the problems.

Aaron Weiss said: It's not a secret that Perl is structurally flexible, and the conventional wisdom is that Perl gives you "enough rope to hang yourself". Funny. But that's not the gripe -- go ahead, hang yourself if you want. That's freedom. The problem is that Perl also gives you enough rope to hang others."

Eric Naggum said: It's not that perl programmers are idiots, it's that the language rewards idiotic behavior in a way that no other language or tool has ever done.

Peter da Silva said: The syntax is awkward, overcomplex, has too many obscure special cases (there's to many obvious examples to list, I'll just mention one of the obscure ones: the way scalars and collections in for loops are treated), and the result is that you have to not just "know Perl" you have to be a Perl language lawyer just to avoid wandering into a dark alley and getting figuratively mugged by some cool feature.

Nicholas Clark said: That indirect object syntax is worthy of hate. (I think)

In the Switch documentation, Damian Conway said: BUGS: There are undoubtedly serious bugs lurking somewhere in code this funky :-) Bug reports and other feedback are most welcome. LIMITATIONS: Due to the heuristic nature of Switch.pm's source parsing, the presence of regexes specified with raw ?...? delimiters may cause mysterious errors. The workaround is to use m?...? instead. Due to the way source filters work in Perl, you can't use Switch inside an string eval.

Matt McLeod said: But the moment you try to anything properly, try to modularize and, you know, do perverted things like *reusing code*, it becomes a pain in the arse. One exciting feature I came across recently is that under certain circumstances you can create what seems like a module which exports a bunch of names, but if you don't start the name with an upper-case character it only exports the first. And it won't *tell* you this is what is going on (even with -w and use strict), it just whines that it can't find &main::foo() when it's supposed to be getting &thing::foo(). Don't even get me started on the flatten-all-arguments-into- a-list-of-scalars bullshit. Or the lack of any decent support in the basic language for datastructures other than lists. I'm sorry, walking through an array of arrays of hashrefs is not a substitute for a record/struct datatype, and having to fight it's alleged OO model to use a third-party "class" do what would be a simple job in anything else is completely not acceptable to me.

Lars Marius Garshol said: Casting of operands in comparisons: induced errors. Redefinition of some C keywords: walltrap. Overcomplexity 1: suffix condit

Shut up.

*&(int)f = 1;

FILE *
concat_fopen (char *s1, char *s2, char *mode)
{
char str[strlen (s1) + strlen (s2) + 1];
...
}

It is very convenient to have operators which return the "minimum" or the
"maximum" of two arguments. In GNU C++ (but not in GNU C),

a <? b
is the minimum, returning the smaller of the numeric values a and b;
a >? b
is the maximum, returning the larger of the numeric values a and b.