Medium points for claiming there is a Possible bug in Perl?
That shouldn't cost points.
For one thing, there are bugs in various perl releases for various platforms. I know, I've submitted bug reports, and had them fixed. Heck, just read some of the Changelogs, or join the developer lists. Perl is good, but it's never been perfect, and probably never will be.
Especially, we as a community shouldn't give people any social disincentive to provide bug reports, even if they're false alarms. Usually, the false alarms are raise about obscure or counter-intutive elements of the design of perl; they're exactly what one would expect people to stumble over.
I'd assign points for claims like this:
- High points for "Perl can't be made readable, by any means"
- Medium points for "Perl is only a scripting language, not a real language"
- High points for "Perl is inherently inferior to language <X>, for every form of programming scenario"
- Medium points for "Perl is not a typed language"
- Low points for "Perl is not object oriented"
- High points for quoting "There's More Than One Way To Do It" in defense of poorly written code
- High points for re-implementing, poorly, a basic perl feature that you didn't know was in the language, such as simulating arrays with an "eval $var$index" type construct
- Very high points for re-implementing, poorly, a basic language feature that you did know was in the language, but disliked, such as replacing recursion with home-made finite state machine, because recursion is "complicated", but managing a list of tasks is "easy". *cough* *former boss* *cough*
| [reply] |
Medium points for claiming there is a Possible bug in Perl?
That shouldn't cost points.
In the spirit of the original CI:
Medium points for claiming there is a Possible bug in Perl (without a good test case)
| [reply] |
| [reply] |
Err, I think number 4 should read more like...
4. High points for even mentioning "types" and "perl" in the same sentence.
| [reply] |
