And then there was the program where the programmer cleverly named all of his variable after types of alcohol and had statements like
I would have given anything to get my hands around that programmer's neck.COMPUTE MARTINI = GIN + VODKA.
The point is not whether or not a language can be obfuscated (I think C is obfuscated simply by its existence), but the development time. COBOL is, generally, easy to maintain, but the development time is horrendous.
Let's take a vote: how many Monks who have experience with both COBOL and Perl feel that there is anything they can develop faster in COBOL?
Another point: Yes, Perl code can be obfuscated and has a steep learning curve (compared to COBOL). But consider the example that I pointed out in COBOL vs. Perl: 80 lines (after optimization, no less!) of COBOL code compared to 10 lines of Perl. Unless someone is deliberately obfuscating the Perl, 10 lines is one heck of a lot easier to debug and maintain than 80.
I went on longer, but it cut me off. The prosecution rests. :)
|Replies are listed 'Best First'.|
(jeffa) 3Re: Perl: Survival of the Fittest
by jeffa (Bishop) on Jun 21, 2000 at 01:13 UTC
by JanneVee (Friar) on Jun 17, 2000 at 13:35 UTC