Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Perl: the Markov chain saw

Separated JAPH/Obfuscation sections

by BooK (Curate)
on Feb 09, 2001 at 20:09 UTC ( #57400=monkdiscuss: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

It looks like JAPH scripts are often misinterpreted for obfuscation stuff, when often they are not.

Actually, I have downvoted several JAPH nodes for not being "obfuscated enough" for me... Since I seldomly gave advice on how to make those better (in my view), this led to bad feelings/votes.

After a discussion in CB with kel and others, we found that maybe the problem is elsewhere: JAPH and obfuscation are actually different. Check this summary:


  • prints "Just Another Perl Hacker"
  • discovery of features
  • less used features used in unusual ways
  • does something useful/funnny/powerful
  • hard to understand/read programs
  • an artistic approach to the code
  • should confuse B::Deparse

It looks like there is a need for a second section, dedicated to JAPH writers. When they get used to those twisted ways of using our beloved Perl, they can switch to Obfuscation...

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Separated JAPH/Obfuscation sections
by Falkkin (Chaplain) on Feb 10, 2001 at 03:14 UTC
    I personally disagree with the idea of Yet Another Section To Place Code. I find it daunting enough to figure out whether a bit of code I'd like to share should go in Code, Craft, CUFP, or Snippets; the difference seems to mostly be an issue of size vs. general usefulness vs. "Wow, you couldn't do that in most languages". I don't think that a similar split between obfuscation and JAPHs makes any sense... it's not as though the Obfuscation area gets more than a couple posts a day anyways. If you're dissatisfied with the recent posts in the Obfuscation section, just ignore them... save your votes up so that the real Obfuscations can rack up the ++. ;)

      I agree that there are already a lot of sections here, and I often don't know where to post my questions... (Yes, I sometimes post elsewhere than in Obfuscated Code.)

      Clearly the Obfuscation section is not the place where most posts go. Anyway, I really feel that JAPH and Obfuscation are two different matters. I like to be surprised by the code I read in this section, and all too often alas, I know what a particular piece of code will print (and how) without reading it all (no I didn't read this one completely, but I am shocked by the good reputation it gets)...

      But you are probably right when you say I should ignore posts that I find "not good enough". It's just that these JAPH are not what I (and I hope others) think obfuscation is... At first I tried -- to indicate my reprobation, then I tried critique (or worse). Now, I feel that JAPH have their own use, which is good, but is not the same as obfuscation (which would be something closer to artistic).

Re: Separated JAPH/Obfuscation sections
by dsb (Chaplain) on Feb 09, 2001 at 21:04 UTC
    I am definitely no authority around here, but one point that was made during our discussion was the desire to avoid discouraging new Perl Hackers. Seperating the sections may open the paths of suggestion from those who have a lot to offer, like BooK, when they aren't distracted and a bit put off by the confusion between JAPH/Obfuscation.

    I had no intention of offending anyone but the thing is, I didn't know. Seperate sections may make a more obvious choice for where to post code to Newbies. - kel -

Re: Separated JAPH/Obfuscation sections
by extremely (Priest) on Feb 10, 2001 at 11:46 UTC
    I'd rather we just continue blurring the line between JAPH and Obfus... Maybe go the other way and change the page name?

    $you = new YOU;
    honk() if $you->love(perl)

Log In?

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: monkdiscuss [id://57400]
Approved by root
and all is quiet...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others meditating upon the Monastery: (8)
As of 2017-07-21 13:41 GMT
Find Nodes?
    Voting Booth?
    I came, I saw, I ...

    Results (323 votes). Check out past polls.