|Syntactic Confectionery Delight|
Re: Practical example of "Is Perl code maintainable" (golf)by tye (Sage)
|on Aug 13, 2007 at 15:54 UTC||Need Help??|
Reading your proposed code, I'd think you were shooting for a golf win rather than for maintainable code. I think you make a good case for the bad influence of "golf" on the ability of Perl coders to write maintainable code, which I'm certain is not something you want to do.
Here are some of your infractions against my personal list of best practices for Perl:
The original code is a bit verbose and demonstrates a lack of knowledge about list slices and a lack of confidence about list assignment in Perl. I'd certainly chop all of the trailing $dummys since that just adds noise. The rest of the code is at least acceptable and most of it I much prefer over your golfed version.
The most maintainable code I'd write would look more like:
Note that I didn't use File::stat because the BUGS section is unacceptable to me. ETOOMUCHMAGIC is such a common problem. I wish more Perl coders could learn to be proud of writing simple code, rather than so often nearly trying to invent a new language with each module in the apparent attempt to provide one's personal "perfect syntax" for expressing what the module is meant to address. It would have been better for File::stat to avoid overriding the name stat().