Re: "Baby" Perl versus "Bad" Perlby jonadab (Parson)
|on Dec 05, 2005 at 14:52 UTC||Need Help??|
OOP can be "baby" or "bad" in the same way that structured programming can be.
Hence the qualification, even when it would be a good way to solve the problem at hand. Some problems do naturally lend themselves to OO, although of course most don't. It's not something you need to learn in your first couple of years of programming in Perl, but eventually you pick it up and add it to your tool belt.
[short, simple sentences] might just as well be a hallmark of good Perl.
Are you seriously arguing that the example I gave of what I was talking about constitutes good code, or are you just trolling?
Regarding simplistic comments:
Maybe "baby" is the reason but "bad" is the result.
I guess that depends on who's most likely to need the comments, the baby programmer himself, or someone else. Bear in mind, for someone new to a language, comments that remind what even a simple, built-in feature does can be useful. A more experienced programmer just *knows*, of course, and you wouldn't want to see such comments in important code -- but important code should be maintained by experienced programmers in any case. I don't think it's bad, when learning a language, to use comments as a reminder to oneself of language features. I do think you want to grow out of that as you gain more knowledge of the language, of course.