comment on

"Perl's main drawback is that parts of it are irredeemably ugly, complicated, and must be used with caution and in stereotyped ways lest they bite (its argument-passing conventions for functions are a good example of all three)"

I have seen so many variations of this statement and it still seems to say absolutely nothing to me about Perl. It seems to me that you could put almost any language at the front and find some aspect(s) of it that fit the description.

As regards the arguement-passing convention, is it really so complicated? that much more so than say C's? And there is such an elegant way to use the parameter passing, the hash method; In most languages such a divergent solution from the standard wouldn't be possible.

I started using an example of a string in C but decided it was long winded and didn't really add anything... It just made me happy I have Perl.

In reply to Re: Perl aesthetics: the good, the bad, the ugly. by Sifmole
in thread Perl aesthetics: the good, the bad, the ugly. by vladb

Are you posting in the right place? Check out Where do I post X? to know for sure.
Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags. Currently these include the following:
<code> <a> <b> <big> <blockquote> <br /> <dd> <dl> <dt> <em> <font> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr /> <i> <li> <nbsp> <ol> <p> <small> <strike> <strong> <sub> <sup> <table> <td> <th> <tr> <tt> <u> <ul>
Snippets of code should be wrapped in <code> tags not <pre> tags. In fact, <pre> tags should generally be avoided. If they must be used, extreme care should be taken to ensure that their contents do not have long lines (<70 chars), in order to prevent horizontal scrolling (and possible janitor intervention).
Want more info? How to link or How to display code and escape characters are good places to start.


The stupid question is the question not asked
	PerlMonks