Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks DiBona
XP is just a number
 
PerlMonks  

Re: Modern Perl and the Future of Perl

by BrowserUk (Pope)
on Dec 21, 2007 at 01:36 UTC ( #658357=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Modern Perl and the Future of Perl

I've stayed well away from the ongoing flamefests elsewhere, because:

  • a) I haven't seen the bodies of any of cops posts since something like the 5th post he ever posted thanks to a small bit of CSS markup. He's the only person I have ever applied that to.
  • B) 'Response is reward' in his case, and life is too short.

    And you will doubtless dismiss this because of who I am. None the less...

    If you think that Perl::Critic constitutes "new idioms" and "the future of Perl", then I am, for the first time, truely afraid of the future.

    Because if you think that tying Perl down with bondange and discipline; stylistic monoculture; a usury of pedantic, micro-grammatical correctness; and turning Perl into a uniformly pedestrian mono-dialetic; constitutes making it "modern", then I fear you are not the Saviour of P6 as I thought you might be.

    I just hope to Hell and back that Mr. Wall is not so swayed.


    Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
    "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
    In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.


  • Comment on Re: Modern Perl and the Future of Perl
    Re^2: Modern Perl and the Future of Perl
    by chromatic (Archbishop) on Dec 21, 2007 at 01:53 UTC

      I think you misunderstand me.

      Because if you think that tying Perl down with bondange and discipline...

      If Perl::Critic were not customizable, I wouldn't use it. I wouldn't recommend it.

      I think it's valuable, in the same way that I think having coding standards are valuable, but I don't think you'd adopt mine wholesale, nor should you.

      I use Perl::Critic as an example of a new tool that can help people improve their code. I think Perl Best Practices is a good book which discusses how people can improve their code. I don't apply every practice when I code, and I'm sure Damian's fine with that.

      Likewise, I don't mind when someone uses Object::InsideOut over Moose or vice versa. They're both fine tools.

      I do mind if someone's rolling his own blessed hash objects with the ref $self || $self idiom and fragile subclassing problems, because there are better solutions that exist that somehow we need to evangelize through the entire Perl community, not just the insular percentages that frequent the top Perl forums in the world.

      Enforcing B&D for everyone at the language level is wrong, but providing sane defaults and giving people the option to turn the thumbscrews to their desired level of pain or pleasure makes more sense. I think it's even Perlish.

      I fear you are not the Saviour of P6 as I thought you might be.

      Never claimed to be, nor wanted to be. (I do think roles are pretty awesome, and I'm happy to share some credit for them.) You might be pleased to learn that I did howl when the idea came up of making classes closed by default. Fortunately, no one suggested that seriously.

        "Never claimed to be, nor wanted to be", yet pretended to be. By the way, in your first sentence, please say "misderstood", not "misunderstand".

        The reason that he had that thought was that you had pretended for too long, and eventually got people confused.

        If Perl::Critic were not customizable, I wouldn't use it. I wouldn't recommend it.

        Well yes, it's customisable but only before the fact. Not during.

        One of those 10 commandants is "thou shalt not kill". A pretty good rule for the most part, but we can all think of times and places, people and circumstances in which even this rule must be ignorable. Take your pick from military, to policeman; to a parent defending her children; self-defense; capital punishment. Some each of us can agree with. Some we may not.

        That's why we have courts and judges and juries to decide on a case by case basis. Because no matter how complex and complete the legistlatures attempt to cover all the bases, there are always exceptions and exceptional circumstances.

        Even just opinion influences what was illegal yesterday is legal to day and may be illegal again tomorrow.

        "Yeah but that's just an futile, extreme analogy that doesn't hold up for the case of coding standards techniques and constructs."

        But...the problem with Perl::Critic is that it attempts to take the human out of the decision making process.

        Yes, it can be configured. But that still requires a pre-judgement that must be applied to all cases henceforth. As in--this is the configuration that we will use for this company/dept/team coding standards and all code shall be run against and anomolies resolved.

        But on what basis do you decide the configuration?

        • Imposed from on high (minority rule)

          You (if your the boss) decide what you thinkis right and everyone follows.

          Analogy:apartheid

        • Majority concensus

          What about the opinions of those that don't agree?

          Analogy: American Indians/black 200 or 100 years ago.

          Or those that join the group later?

          Analogy: Americanised Japanese 1941

        • Other?

        The saving argument is that Perl::Critic used correctly, will draw human attention to just those areas of the decision making process requires concensus. That when the programmer choses to ignore a "standardised" configured ruling and a warning is produced, s/he should have to justify their decision to do so to "management".

        1984

        The reduction of the art of programming to the step by step application of a set of rules and procedures. Big brother is watching you.

        Paranoia you cry. But I now live in a society that has the greatest concentration of CCTV cameras per head of population in the entire world.

        For the most part they do not figure in my life at all, but 23 years ago and even 10 years ago, the idea that this could happen was laughable and unthinkable.

        Imagine 11 months ago when I said "Imagine a world where human beings where unable to apply their reason and discrimination to rules and guide lines." that that could ever become true.

        Taking the human out of the decision making process; and even sitting on the programmers shoulder and making his decisions or making him justify every decision; and taking away his voice and influence over the work he does.

        I've worked on a production line in a car factory where you sit for 2 minutes and 13 seconds and then stand and do your 7 alloted tasks for 3 minutes and 2 seconds for 6 hours and 42 minutes each day. You don't want to go there, and this is the start.


        Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
        "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
        In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

          If you can't agree on a coding style within your team, the use of Perl::Critic is not your biggest problem. If you can't modify the coding style within your team as necessary, the use of P::C is again not your biggest problem.

          You can run into the same problem with programmable text editors, the strict pragma, variable naming conventions, unit tests, pre-commit hooks, and any other useful tool for software development.

        I am dread of this!

        Read through Perl::Critic. Interesting but bad idea. Over the years I don't know how many lines of code (in different languages) I have reviewed, I never once thought of impose anything on anyone.

        Programming is art more than engineering. The "perl encourages bad coding style" critique has been certainly taken in the wrong way, actaully two wrong wayS: 1) total denial, and 2) over-react in the wrong direction with the wrong fix.

    Re^2: Modern Perl and the Future of Perl
    by Cop on Dec 22, 2007 at 06:06 UTC

      I don't read your posts, but I do LOOK at them. The length simple turn me off. What kind of wisedom could take this many words to express?

    Log In?
    Username:
    Password:

    What's my password?
    Create A New User
    Node Status?
    node history
    Node Type: note [id://658357]
    help
    Chatterbox?
    and the web crawler heard nothing...

    How do I use this? | Other CB clients
    Other Users?
    Others about the Monastery: (10)
    As of 2014-04-18 23:01 GMT
    Sections?
    Information?
    Find Nodes?
    Leftovers?
      Voting Booth?

      April first is:







      Results (472 votes), past polls