Comments on: Status Report For Perl Tutorials http://webguru.mathgurusonline.com/2006/03/10/status-report-for-perl-tutorials/ Tue, 06 Jan 2009 05:34:22 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.2 en 2004-2005 () Talk Radio Comment-cast: Status Report For Perl Tutorials Comment-cast: Status Report For Perl Tutorials WebGuru Web Programming http://webguru.mathgurusonline.com 144 144 by: rdash http://webguru.mathgurusonline.com/2006/03/10/status-report-for-perl-tutorials/#comment-13 Mon, 13 Mar 2006 05:56:54 +0000 http://webguru.mathgurusonline.com/2006/03/10/status-report-for-perl-tutorials/#comment-13 Randal, it was essentially sloppy editing on my part. I'll clean up the tutorials at some point soon, and keep your suggestions to heart for the future. Thx Randal, it was essentially sloppy editing on my part. I’ll clean up the tutorials at some point soon, and keep your suggestions to heart for the future. Thx

]]> rdash Randal, it was essentially sloppy editing on my part. I'll clean up the tutorials at some point soon, and keep ... Randal, it was essentially sloppy editing on my part. I'll clean up the tutorials at some point soon, and keep ... by: Randal L. Schwartz http://webguru.mathgurusonline.com/2006/03/10/status-report-for-perl-tutorials/#comment-12 Sat, 11 Mar 2006 17:03:38 +0000 http://webguru.mathgurusonline.com/2006/03/10/status-report-for-perl-tutorials/#comment-12 I don't think my objection is "advanced" vs "basic", but please don't make Perl seem harder than it is. If I limited myself to a subset of Perl that does not include the &#60;&#62; handle, I still would have written those examples differently, to not have variables that have no purpose, and not count things multiple ways when one counter would do. I don't know why you wrote the code the way you do. It's not just about "being simpler". Look at the first few dozen pages of Learning Perl. I introduce no more than once concept per example. And yet, it still looks *very* Perlish even early on. And go back and look at your examples: you sometimes have two or three variables all counting from 1 to N, or 0 to N-1 or something. That's very confusing. If you're going to use foreach, use its power. Don't have an aux variable counting along the same values. If you want to count instead, then use a while() loop or something. I don’t think my objection is “advanced” vs “basic”, but please don’t make Perl seem harder than it is. If I limited myself to a subset of Perl that does not include the <> handle, I still would have written those examples differently, to not have variables that have no purpose, and not count things multiple ways when one counter would do.

I don’t know why you wrote the code the way you do. It’s not just about “being simpler”. Look at the first few dozen pages of Learning Perl. I introduce no more than once concept per example. And yet, it still looks *very* Perlish even early on. And go back and look at your examples: you sometimes have two or three variables all counting from 1 to N, or 0 to N-1 or something. That’s very confusing. If you’re going to use foreach, use its power. Don’t have an aux variable counting along the same values. If you want to count instead, then use a while() loop or something.

]]> Randal L. Schwartz I don't think my objection is "advanced" vs "basic", but please don't make Perl seem harder than it is. ... I don't think my objection is "advanced" vs "basic", but please don't make Perl seem harder than it is. ...