From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Apr 8 02:16:05 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADBBC106566B for ; Thu, 8 Apr 2010 02:16:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from perrin@apotheon.com) Received: from outbound-mail-158.bluehost.com (cpoproxy2-pub.bluehost.com [67.222.39.38]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 776638FC0A for ; Thu, 8 Apr 2010 02:16:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 22819 invoked by uid 0); 8 Apr 2010 02:16:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO box543.bluehost.com) (74.220.219.143) by cpoproxy2.bluehost.com with SMTP; 8 Apr 2010 02:16:03 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=apotheon.com; h=Date:From:To:Subject:Message-ID:Mail-Followup-To:References:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To:User-Agent:X-Identified-User; b=NKu5GyMjwSdnhMWUubhgtUart+QUEaaHtTUarT5+fMnCGhy4LYNTOvq0E0hgT9O838MECHKdkRB+G7gdorkdaVLbEx5Fjldik4Fbki6KI06NKPD7wtkJsnOJoNumzfrs; Received: from c-24-8-180-234.hsd1.co.comcast.net ([24.8.180.234] helo=kukaburra.hydra) by box543.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NzhHm-0004cv-32 for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Wed, 07 Apr 2010 20:16:03 -0600 Received: by kukaburra.hydra (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 07 Apr 2010 19:15:05 -0600 Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 19:15:05 -0600 From: Chad Perrin To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20100408011505.GA30243@guilt.hydra> Mail-Followup-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org References: <20100404163353.GA15198@guilt.hydra> <20100404201442.b456044e.freebsd@edvax.de> <4BB9A5ED.3040309@infracaninophile.co.uk> <20100405173632.739a0c42@gumby.homeunix.com> <20100406015544.GA21119@guilt.hydra> <20100406132049.641b9edf@gumby.homeunix.com> <20100407030717.GA26298@guilt.hydra> <20100407130954.4fd56215@gumby.homeunix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="ibTvN161/egqYuK8" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100407130954.4fd56215@gumby.homeunix.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-Identified-User: {2737:box543.bluehost.com:apotheon:apotheon.org} {sentby:smtp auth 24.8.180.234 authed with ren@apotheon.org} Subject: Re: perl qstn... X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2010 02:16:05 -0000 --ibTvN161/egqYuK8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 01:09:54PM +0100, RW wrote: > On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 21:07:17 -0600 > Chad Perrin wrote: >=20 > > On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 01:20:49PM +0100, RW wrote: > > > On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 19:55:44 -0600 > > > Chad Perrin wrote: > > >=20 > > > > On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 05:36:32PM +0100, RW wrote: >=20 > > > > There are more things in heav'n and earth, Horatio, than are > > > > dreamt of by designers of eagerly evaluated prefix notation > > > > languages. > > >=20 > > > And most of them are obscure for good reasons. Just because a a > > > syntax fits into a classification scheme doesn't make it a good > > > idea. >=20 > > Shall we trade more trite sniping, or would you like to say something > > more substantive?=20 >=20 > You started it. 1. No, I used a misquote to lead into a lengthy explanation. 2. Seriously? Are you not aware of how juvenile that sounds? > > >=20 > > > Natural languages are mostly driven by spoken usage, in which people > > > firm-up half-formed ideas as they speak - this is not a good model > > > for programming languages. If you are hacking out a quick and dirty > > > script it may be convenient to type the decision after the action, > > > but it don't I think it promotes good quality software. > >=20 > > This sounds exactly like the complaints Pythonistas use to explain why > > they have a deep hatred of Perl. If that's how you feel, I'd prefer > > you stop trying to tell me how Perl should work, and just use > > something else. >=20 > I'm not, I'm expressing an opinion that this is not a feature worth > copying. Judging by your further disputations with Mr. Schwartz, I don't think I believe you. >=20 > > > Imperative languages have a natural order of decision followed by > > > action, and code is most easily readable if the syntax doesn't try > > > to subvert that. =20 > >=20 > > . . . except when the "natural order of decision" varies > > significantly, such as when comparing functions with operators. It > > gets even more confusing when both "functions" and "operators" are > > actually methods in object oriented languages with an imperative > > design, because suddenly the difference between a "function" and an > > "operator" becomes purely arbitrary. There's nothing about > > arbitrariness that suggests a "natural order". >=20 > Expression are different. When you are trying to understand thousands > of lines of code, the order of execution within an expression is fine > detail, but the flow of execution is something that needs to be > taken-in easily.=20 This doesn't change anything I said. >=20 > > It's kind of odd you rail against natural language then talk about >=20 > I'm not railing again natural languages, I just don't think they have > much relevance. It's kind of odd you rail against natural language *in this context*. I thought "in this context" was obvious. >=20 > > imperative languages having a "natural order" -- which is, presumably, > > based on the expectations of people who have been conditioned to think > > that way by their use of natural language. >=20 > No, it's conditioned by causality, and other mainstream programming > languages. > =20 > People juggle a lot of languages, being different for the sake of it > isn't very helpful. Who said anything about being different for the sake of being different? If you find it too difficult to actually respond to what I said, please refrain from responding. >=20 > > Frankly, if everybody just stuck to a purely "natural order of > > decision" approach to imperative language design, we would never even > > have developed structured programming. >=20 > I have no idea what you trying to say here. I presume it must be some > kind of straw man argument. It's not a straw man argument. Your presumption is wrong. I have no idea how what I said could not be perfectly obvious. It's pretty clear. --=20 Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] --ibTvN161/egqYuK8 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAku9LhkACgkQ9mn/Pj01uKVnLgCg2azUNr5AxsDLnCm4KjfNdvww FycAnRUaPpt2Coewd48Em7C73ETE7oMr =hcOS -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --ibTvN161/egqYuK8--