Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
We don't bite newbies here... much

Re^2: question about: my $a AND sort {$a <=> $b} keys %hash

by Your Mother (Bishop)
on Aug 06, 2015 at 14:01 UTC ( #1137685=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

in reply to Re: question about: my $a AND sort {$a <=> $b} keys %hash
in thread question about: my $a AND sort {$a <=> $b} keys %hash

How would you correct the design "flaw"? Don't be vague. Explain why your design would be better than a minor caveat and could have survived the evolution of Perl 1...5 and introduction of lexicals.

Four? Maybe eight lines of code to answer the second point. 30 years of professional programming…

  • Comment on Re^2: question about: my $a AND sort {$a <=> $b} keys %hash

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: question about: my $a AND sort {$a <=> $b} keys %hash
by Anonymous Monk on Aug 06, 2015 at 14:37 UTC
    I love Perl, but the lack of lexical scoping in the original design was a huge gaping design flaw that left a bunch of smaller flaws in its wake.

    (not the other anon)

      I understand in retrospect that's an easy conclusion and not wrong per se. The idea though, design process to forward think everything, is why Perl 6 has taken a decade and half and several design redrafts. The design process Larry used shipped a language immediately and for all its often cited warts is still, for me, easily the best high level language. There likely would be no surviving Perl at all today if Larry had undertaken lexical scope off the blocks.

        Flawlessness may not be possible or even desirable, but a flaw is still a flaw.

Log In?

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://1137685]
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others rifling through the Monastery: (4)
As of 2019-12-13 03:12 GMT
Find Nodes?
    Voting Booth?

    No recent polls found