Re:93% of Paint Splatters Are Valid Perl Programs (2019)
by mrguyorama on Monday April 29, 2024 @03:49PM
(#40203242)
>but the experimental result is essentially nothing.
Sir, this is SIGBOVIK.
Re:93% of Paint Splatters Are Valid Perl Programs (2019)
by eternityforest on Monday April 29, 2024 @02:21PM
(#40202008)
If it tolerates meaningless input, that means you could accidentally hit a key, type garbage in a file and the compiler would have no complaints...
I've done this many times, trying to use the search bar and then having the debugger suddenly plop my cursor into a file....
I get what people are going for, but I don't think I would enjoy coding in Perl!
Re:93% of Paint Splatters Are Valid Perl Programs (2019)
by thyrsus on Tuesday April 30, 2024 @07:32AM
(#40209844)
1. git complains about the uncommitted changes
2. When intentionally writing perl, half the time my "perl -c foo.pl" complains about syntax or badly used names (usu. misspellings), with the typo to correct being obvious. As a practical matter, it's not a problem.
I see a lot of semicolons in that ocr output, which might be cheating.
Re:93% of Paint Splatters Are Valid Perl Programs (2019)
by eternityforest on Tuesday April 30, 2024 @10:37PM
(#40218938)
Git complains about uncommitted changes but it won't complain if you just like, open a random file and hit a key.
I'm sure it has some level of checking, but it doesn't seem anywhere near like what you get in Rust or MyPy.
I generally find dumb mistakes and typos take more time to solve than type annotations and verbose syntax take to write.
Many scripting languages will tolerate meaningless input.
Instead of these extremely non-character-istic splatters, I think scribbles or random raster bitmaps would be better input.