Re: No batch processing on Linux?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Joel Roth wrote:

With all the subtle craft of software development,
I find it suprising to hear a truism that it's hard to read perl. Harder than lisp?
Hard than C? Harder than Forth?

I don't. I find perl utterly unreadable. Even simple basic perl stuff eludes me. It's gobbledeygook. But then, I've yet to succeed in even basic RegEx stuff regardless of language, so maybe I'm not good at cryptic expressions in general.

Lisp I've glanced at. I think the nesting would drive me crazy.

C and C++ I can at least read.

I used to program in Forth. Forth is very readable - as long as you keep the context and the stack in mind as you dive deeper into the vocabulary of the particular program you're reading. (Forth programmers are also famous for contests in writing the most unreadable one-line programs that do something non-trivial. They like to do that - popup a one-line program and challenge another Forth programmer to figure out what it does. Don't ask me for one of those!)

Regardless of the programming language, the important part is the design, architecture and coding discipline. Any programmer can write unreadable, unmaintainable, cryptic code in any language. Explains why perl is the way it is! ;-)

--
David
gnome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
authenticity, honesty, community
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Sound]     [ALSA Users]     [Pulse Audio]     [ALSA Devel]     [Sox Users]     [Linux Media]     [Kernel]     [Photo Sharing]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Media]

  Powered by Linux