in reply to
Re: "Baby" Perl versus "Bad" Perl
in thread "Baby" Perl versus "Bad" Perl
Baby Perl usually doesn't attempt to use the Perl5 object model at all, even when it would be a good way to solve the problem at hand.
What's the Perl5 object model? I don't really think this applies in any case. OOP can be "baby" or "bad" in the same way that structured programming can be. Whether it is used to solve a problem has nothing to do with whether the code is good or bad, baby or fluent.
They are short.
They are simple.
Each one is on its own line.
Those three might just as well be a hallmark of good Perl.
Baby Perl may leave out comments it should include, or include comments that are needless, especially ones that duplicate the language documentation, e.g., telling what a builtin does.
Maybe "baby" is the reason but "bad" is the result.
"My two cents aren't worth a dime.";