>>2
Explicit temporaries, apparent misunderstanding of the role of context, failure to quote, lying about the output…this is you're EXPERT Perl coding? 15mph indeed.
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-12 9:10
There is no such thing as ``expert´´ perl coding. Coding in perl is like peeing your pants.
>>2
implicit vars are for idiots
idiots that never have to have to read their own or have anyone else read their code later
always always use explicit vars
also solve the quoting issue using only a single liner... you can't can you?
qw(blah) works but in a multiline context but not here
>>5
3.times do |i|
puts ">>#{i+5}\nReplying to this thread just so I can get this shit off my browser"
end #end end end end end end end end end end end end
>>23
Pretty much. It caught AIDS from Pascal, it runs SLOW AS FUCK, and it's not even Turing-complete without egregious use of eval and regicen. Basically, it's only useful as a template language, and even for that purpose it's already been outclassed by PHP.
You know what, I won't even ask. I'm sure it's an obscure meme from some other text board, meaning IHBT.
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-13 11:35
>> 24 in this day of cheap CPU cycles, and cheaper memory why do I care about speed? If i need faster I just throw more hardware at the problem. If I need rapid application development I'll use something like Ruby because developers cost more per hour than CPU time does.
In real term your speed argument is a null value, and it's like, just your opinion, man.
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-13 11:41
in this day of cheap CPU cycles, and cheaper memory why do I care about speed?
I care about faggotry. That's why I use Ruby.
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-13 11:42
>>26
There is a limit to amount of hardware that can be allocated.
Algorithm time and space grows exponentially with bad designs.
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-13 11:44
>>26
Python beats Ruby for rapid application development, and it produces more maintainable code. It's also faster.
It's interesting how people will still use the ``throw hardware at it'' cop-out when every significant programming problem today is a direct demonstration of the fact that that doesn't work.
I've been to Myspace's Data Centers (they run Windows IIS lol!) and it appears the only limit to hardware is physical space, power consumption, and cooling.
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-13 11:48
>>31
Perl is illegible and pig disgusting. C is nice, but tedious to write complicated things in, unless you layer on abstractions to the point that it stops being significantly faster.
I can't understand my own C code without looking up each function and checking old sources. It grows complex fast and cannot be debugged without significant effort, so i basically rewrite it again.
>>30
It's not designed to be slow. It's designed to encourage sensible scaling by making programmers aware of performance constraints.
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-13 12:35
>>41
I just got high off of all the buzzwords you spiked your post with
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-13 12:39
Ruby leverages performance constraints and Sensible Scaling™ Technology to provide clients worldwide with robust, scalable, modern turnkey implementations of flexible, personalized, cutting-edge Internet-enabled e-business application product suite e-solution architectures that accelerate response to customer and real-world market demands and reliably adapt to evolving technology needs, seamlessly and efficiently integrating and synchronizing with their existing legacy infrastructure, enhancing the e-readiness capabilities of their e-commerce production environments across the enterprise while giving them a critical competitive advantage and taking them to the next level.
>>32
Web apps have the benefit of being relatively easy to distribute, and it's still far from trivial to do even for them.
Most applications simply cannot be distributed without spending a lot more time redesigning it than you could have saved by just doing it right from the start, instead of pretending hardware is going to save you from your own incompetence.
Moore's law came to an end several years ago. You can no longer count on automatic scaling.
>>49
You're an idiot, you know that? The only reason transistor count has continued to go up is because processor count has gone up. That is to say, the part that makes scaling non-trivial.
As expected, you are not only wrong, but also an ignorant moron.
Quibbling over semantics are we now?
I shot you down on raw transistor count so you change your definition.
Then you turn that around, say I was wrong and try to talk shit.
Clearly you are trying to pick an internets fight. Just as clearly you have never worked in an ENTERPRISE ENVIRONMENT.
We shall discuss this matter when your resume consists of more entries than just your Education.
>>52
Kid, come back when you are out of school and onto your second job. Then we can discuss the matter as equals. I'll even let you buy the first round. Until shut your whore mouth, mmkay?
Name:
Anonymous2009-08-13 17:36
To elaborate further:
That which you read about on the internet + your opinion != real world experience