S
sln
Is it possible that the beauty of the written sentence, the formulation of
adjective invectives, interferes with code logic?
Yeah, Perl is a prime example. If you ever uses and assembler you would know
this.
As your eye pleasingly passes over flowery invectives of logic, does it stop at
the right time? Does it distinguish the array name from the scalar name in a flowing
manner?
Perl is sing-song reading and writing, with little obfuscated punctuation, and all
the air taken out of it to hide its authors shortcomings in/or invections of such logic.
The air-heads here take it to incredible lengths to pronounce a particular thing abhorent
in style. In fact, most of the reply's here from these air-heads are all about style.
Sometimes, they completely miss the conceptual logic errors. They can't see the forrest for
the trees. These are not guru's whatsoever. I'm not a guru. Althoug..
In the short examples and scopes posted here, what does 'maintainable' mean anyway?
When should something be considered maintainable?
I suggest deeper logic and structure needs to have maintinance a factor in the design.
But only then and nothing else. Even then, it may be just a few names. Otherwise, like
Perl, a sick, typless language, take the pain! You want it you got it. So suck it up!
Otherwise, it all assembles into the same code. Don't act like Perl is anthing special,
it is far from it.
More '1-liners', more fun! Don't try to legitamize logic after the fact!
-sln
adjective invectives, interferes with code logic?
Yeah, Perl is a prime example. If you ever uses and assembler you would know
this.
As your eye pleasingly passes over flowery invectives of logic, does it stop at
the right time? Does it distinguish the array name from the scalar name in a flowing
manner?
Perl is sing-song reading and writing, with little obfuscated punctuation, and all
the air taken out of it to hide its authors shortcomings in/or invections of such logic.
The air-heads here take it to incredible lengths to pronounce a particular thing abhorent
in style. In fact, most of the reply's here from these air-heads are all about style.
Sometimes, they completely miss the conceptual logic errors. They can't see the forrest for
the trees. These are not guru's whatsoever. I'm not a guru. Althoug..
In the short examples and scopes posted here, what does 'maintainable' mean anyway?
When should something be considered maintainable?
I suggest deeper logic and structure needs to have maintinance a factor in the design.
But only then and nothing else. Even then, it may be just a few names. Otherwise, like
Perl, a sick, typless language, take the pain! You want it you got it. So suck it up!
Otherwise, it all assembles into the same code. Don't act like Perl is anthing special,
it is far from it.
More '1-liners', more fun! Don't try to legitamize logic after the fact!
-sln