/prog/ - Perl is not ugly

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 3:53

If you think Perl is ugly, you don't know how to use it.

Discuss.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 3:55

If you think your girlfriend is ugly, you don't know how to use it.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 3:56

You're mother isn't ugly. I just didn't know how to use her.

Discuss.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 6:35

Beauty is subjective.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 11:38

Cameltoe

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 12:59

Could you show me some perl you have written >>1?

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 13:03

If you think perl is beautiful, you're not actually getting anything done in it.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 14:44

>>7
If you think Perl is ugly, you don't know how to use it.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 14:48

>>8
goto :>>2

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 14:50

You're mother isn't ugly. I just didn't know how to use her.

Discuss.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 15:03

>>9
Nice missing semi-colon, faggot.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 15:11

if you think perl is ugly, you care more about syntax than actually programming

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 15:19

If you think Perl is ugly, you're absolutely right.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 15:36

If you think Perl is ugly, you're a homosexual.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 15:39

>>13
>>14
Why not put both of the statements in a singal conditional, rather than checking the same thing twice? Sloppy girls.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 16:07

if ($perl == "ugly") {
$you = "fucking idiot";
}

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 16:16

>>16
I don't like how Perl requires braces for single line statements. If I can do it in C, I want to be able to do it in a higher level language.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 16:20

>>17
You should always use curly braces around one statement conditionals/loops, even in C.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 16:23

>>17

curly braces just make it read nicer honestly

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 16:42

>>18,19
Stop trying to tell me what syntax you think looks nicer. It's the same exact thing just more compact.
As long as you still indent that statement there is no problem.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 16:43

>>20
ok

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 17:48

check 'em

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 17:59

>>16

if ($perl eq "ugly") {

    $you = "fucking idiot";

}

FTFY

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 18:01

Ugly way of extracting function arguments inherited from shell languages, ugly improvised characters like -> for essential operations, ugly pseudo shortcuts like $_ which most of the time aren't even shorter, $ aka the ugliest ascii character all over the code for no good reason, ugly syntax for class declarations because OO is tacked on etc.

Sigils are especially horrendous with lots of short variable names, e.g., in array based algorithms as seen in this snippet from rosettacode:



sub permute (&@) {

        my $code = shift;

        my @idx = 0..$#_;

        while ( $code->(@_[@idx]) ) {

            my $p = $#idx;

            --$p while $idx[$p-1] > $idx[$p];

            my $q = $p or return;

            push @idx, reverse splice @idx, $p;

            ++$q while $idx[$p-1] > $idx[$q];

            @idx[$p-1,$q]=@idx[$q,$p-1];

        }

}

If you don't think this is ugly you should have your eyes checked.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 18:08

>>23
i prefer == to eq but sure

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 18:16

>>25
== is for numerical comparisons whilst eq is for string comparisons. Maybe you should try learning perl before ``defending'' it?

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 18:23

'perl' == 'ugly' # => true

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 18:26

>>12

What if I think Perl is semantically even more ugly than syntactically?

The shit perl syntax is only the visible stump of the rotten plant that is above ground.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 18:36

>>25
You might want to brush up Perl:

~$ re.pl

$ my $perl;



$ $perl == "ugly";

Argument "ugly" isn't numeric in numeric eq (==) at (eval 271) line 6.

>>25
That example is indeed ugly, on the other hand don't you find it rather odd that all Scottish sheep are black?

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 18:45

>>29
There's nothing special about that snippet. It's not like i handpicked it from a code obfuscation contest. All code with lots of short variables looks about equally ugly.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 19:13

>>30
The Scottish sheep wasn't handpicked either.

The code was obviously somewhat golfed, and the C version probably reads much the same anyway. On the other hand, if you'd care to prove that it can't be written much more clearly then you can make your point.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 19:33

>>29

using warnings is for fags

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 20:21

Chuck my debs

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 20:29

>>32

Warnings are for fags? Is that so?

In that case, I'm hiring me some coding fags, and sending the non-warning-using real hetero men back to drywall installation where they belong.

(Not real construction though. That requires safety devices.)

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 20:35

>>24
You purposely wrote the code ugly. We are trying to have an intelligent debate here.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 20:42

>>33
I already don't use aptitude

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 20:56

>>35
as seen in this snippet from rosettacode

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 21:15

>>31
Who said anything about clarity. My point is lots of short variable names close together look extremely ugly.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 21:18

>>38
Sure they do. That doesn't have anything to do with Perl though.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 21:32

>>39
Well yes, they look ugly because of sigils. In average perl code maybe 4% of all characters are THE UGLIEST A$$ KEY CHARACTER while in one-letter variable heavy code that number goes up to maybe 20%.

It's also harder to tell $i, $j and $l apart than i,j and l or at least it is for me.

Perl is not ugly

1 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 3:53

2 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 3:55

3 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 3:56

4 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 6:35

5 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 11:38

6 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 12:59

7 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 13:03

8 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 14:44

9 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 14:48

10 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 14:50

11 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 15:03

12 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 15:11

13 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 15:19

14 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 15:36

15 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 15:39

16 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 16:07

17 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 16:16

18 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 16:20

19 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 16:23

20 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 16:42

21 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 16:43

22 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 17:48

23 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 17:59

24 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 18:01

25 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 18:08

26 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 18:16

27 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 18:23

28 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 18:26

29 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 18:36

30 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 18:45

31 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 19:13

32 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 19:33

33 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 20:21

34 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 20:29

35 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 20:35

36 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 20:42

37 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 20:56

38 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 21:15

39 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 21:18

40 Name: Anonymous 2012-01-20 21:32