http://www.perlmonks.org?node_id=1067122


in reply to Re: Autoboxing ... "Yes We Can" ( or how I learned to love TIMTOWTDI ;)
in thread Autoboxing ... "Yes We Can" ( or how I learned to love TIMTOWTDI ;)

First consider, how does eschewing all the possible operator syntaxes -- prefix, postfix, infix, circumfix -- along with all precedence; in favour of a single operator syntax, increase flexibility?

Then read How non-member functions improve encapsulation in full. Then note the author.

Then consider how the ability to call any function as a "method" of any random variable -- regardless of anything -- will play amongst the Duck typing is no typing crowd.

And I'm far from excited. I'm bored to see this being raked over again; especially upon such scant & broken reasoning.

There is simply no reason to lose one's cool in order to counter such illogicality.


With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
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.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Autoboxing ... "Yes We Can" ( or how I learned to love TIMTOWTDI ;)
by Anonymous Monk on Dec 14, 2013 at 11:18 UTC

    Who talked about eschewing anything?

    How does adding another way to TIMTOWTDI make the whole thing less flexible?