SLUG Mailing List Archives
Re: [coders][NRS] 1st night
- To: coders@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [coders][NRS] 1st night
- From: Matthew Palmer <mpalmer@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 17:32:26 +1000
- User-agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
On Sat, Jun 17, 2006 at 05:13:35PM +1000, Andre Pang wrote:
> I know this is a truism, but yes, of course you can write bad code in
> any language. I personally think that the jury's still out on
> whether having a large menagerie of syntax to say the same thing in a
> multitude of ways (i.e. the Perl approach) or enforcing a single way
> of doing things (i.e. the Python approach) is better, since the
> latter can sometimes lead to less maintainable code. Perl's not a
> bad language just because it has such a mass of syntax.
> As a counter-example, Python doesn't really _need_ any of the list-
> processing keywords inspired from functional programming: you can
> arguably do the same thing as map/reduce/filter/list comprehensions
> with a loop (or vice versa), and you could take things to their
> logical conclusion and declare that loops are redundant since you can
> replace all loops with recursion anyway. But syntax matters, and the
> more syntax that's available, the bigger the likelihood of abuse.
> Enforcing one extreme and declaring it's better is a silly argument.
Words to live by.