News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Is Perl 6 Being Renamed? by empath75 on Thursday August 29, 2019 @10:41AM (#20829888)
My experience is that Perl scripts other people wrote are impossible to understand. It made me never want to touch it again. I was handed several unmaintained ten year old Perl scripts to update and in every case I just rewrote it in python just because Perl gave me a migraine looking at it.
Re:Is Perl 6 Being Renamed? by kbenson on Friday August 30, 2019 @01:36AM (#20836173)
As a full time Perl developer at different times over that last 20 years (and the rest of the time a sysadmin with heavy Perl use), it's not that bad anymore. A lot of very poor quality Perl was common in the late 90's and early 2000's, but for the same reason a lot of very poor quality PHP code was around from the early 2000's to early 2010's, which is to say because a lot of novice programmers (or at least novice's to Perl) were writing it, and those novices also happened to to get a lot of code into production. In Perl's case it's because the dot com boom really elevated teh quick and dirty cgi script and Perl was the main language available for that.

These days, people that aren't novices tend program much more clearly in my experience, and there's style guidelines and code linters to take up the slack. It's not like other languages never have to deal with people writing odd or unintelligible code either, there's a reason why style standards are a big thing in many places. Here's an example of a module I use that I just looked up. It's fairly terse in parts (but it's a module, so I hold it to a different standard than my own code), but I would expect anyone familiar with perl would have zero trouble determining what's going on in here, and a lot of code bases will be a little more verbose or use more white space to error on the side of caution and help people process what they are seeing easier.[1]

1: https://metacpan.org/release/Path-Tiny/source/lib/Path/Tiny....

Re:Is Perl 6 Being Renamed? by alabamenhu on Thursday August 29, 2019 @04:16PM (#20833203)
That's a problem with the people who wrote the script, though, not the language itself.

Consider the difference between a minified JS script or one produced with emscripten and the code pre-minification. One is unintelligible guaranteed, the other … maybe haha.

Unfortunately, what tended to happen is people would write one liners, and slowly expand the one liners into more complex one liners, and then integrate them into larger scripts without refactoring. Regex can triple that problem (thankfully Perl 6 allows you to write some of the most intelligible — seriously! — regex out there).

Re:Is Perl 6 Being Renamed? by kjs3 on Thursday August 29, 2019 @07:16PM (#20834618)
That's a problem with the people who wrote the script, though, not the language itself.

That's like the folks who say "the problem with C (buffer overflow, UB, etc.) isn't C, it's the people who write C". Which leads to at some point contemplative folks deciding either "this is happening so often, maybe it is the language" or "the majority of people writing this language are incompetent". While I've heard plenty of people in the C community espouse the latter view, having written C since K&R days, I think most people acknowledge it's a problematic language. But I don't have empirical evidence of a ratio.

I wrote a ton of Perl <=5 back in the day. I'm pretty sure I know why I thought it was a good idea at the time. I know where I fall on the above. I know why I, and virtually everyone I know professionally, don't solve problems in Perl any more. But hey...maybe I'm just incompetent.

Re:Is Perl 6 Being Renamed? by empath75 on Thursday August 29, 2019 @09:21PM (#20835210)
About the ten millionth time that someone had a security breach from exposing s3 buckets aws decided to look into if maybe something in their UX was bad instead of blaming the user every time.

‘User error’ is rarely a sufficient explanation for why something negative happens, particular when those users are professionals using a professional product. At some point one needs look at whether there is something in the product that causes those errors to happen or that doesn’t do enough to prevent them.

Re:Is Perl 6 Being Renamed? by Grinnz on Thursday August 29, 2019 @09:23PM (#20835226)
Both things are true: it's probably the user's fault, and it should be made more foolproof.
Re:Is Perl 6 Being Renamed? by alabamenhu on Friday August 30, 2019 @03:42PM (#20841894)
90% of Perl's line noise comes from using short cute variable names and trying to cram way too much into way too compressed regexes.

There's nothing inherent about Perl that causes people to use $z instead of $somethingDescriptive. And regexes have for quite some time allowed for insignificant whitespace to comment things in detail.

If you comment your regexes and use decent variable names, you solve 98% of the readability problems of Perl, and both of those could be enforced with a linter. But as I said, a lot of the problems come from one liners being slowly expanded. Using single letter var names for anything is fine in a one liner, but not good for long term program legibility or maintance in any language.