Laura's List - was Re: new years resolutions
Andrew McGregor
andrew at indranet.co.nz
Tue Jan 7 23:21:26 EST 2003
--On Wednesday, January 08, 2003 04:57:00 +0100 Laura Creighton
<lac at strakt.com> wrote:
> I don't think that languages are wise, but they certainly can promote
> wisdom, or cleverness. One of the reasons Perl scripts are hard to
> maintain is that it is very easy to pour cleverness on cleverness.
> You get preoccupied with 'what minimal clever hack can I do today to
> modify this program to make it fit my new requirements'. Days, weeks,
> months after you should have tossed some code and written it with the
> new specs, you think that with one more tweak you can get it to work
> and 'save you rewriting it'. But the rewriting would have been faster
> and clearer. You waste your life trying to be clever. And there is
> something about Perl that encourages such unprofitable time-wasting.
> I still don't understand why this is so, but I have watched it in myself
> and others again, and again, and again.
>
> Laura
It's the syntax, I'm sure. So much power in single characters, and the
canonical way of doing so many things is regexps.
The biggest thing that drives perl and C++ into hackishness, and Python,
Pascal and Lisp the other way, is syntactic regularity or lack thereof.
I'm not sure where C lies.
You can see the same thing in physics; contrast the notation of classical
mechanics with the operator algebra formulation of QM. Or even the
classical vs relativistic notations for relativistic EM.
I think the driving force is that a clean design takes more typing in Perl,
whereas in Python it's usually much, much less.
Andrew
More information about the Python-list
mailing list