On 12/17/06, Peter da Silva <[email protected]> wrote:
On Dec 17, 2006, at 12:05 PM, demerphq wrote: >> string.replace("^file:///?","");> No. It. Shouldnt. HATE. I've written just enough pattern matching > code in languages requiring such a stinky syntax to know that it SUCKS > THE WANG REALLY FUCKING BIG TIME. Nobody who likes Perl has any stand at all on stinky syntax. > Not every language needs to look like that. Obviously, or I wouldn't have suggested string replace: '^file:///?' with: ''. Or (ask string replace '"^file:///?" nil) > I hate this whiny "perl doesnt work the way my favourite language > works" shit OK, how about: string " ^file:///?" "" replace Or maybe regsub {^file:///?} string "" ...
Its about brevity. Plain and simple. I don't want to write a bunch of useless text when I do something as common as perform a pattern match. I should be able to do a pattern match with about as much excess verbiage as I need to do addition. As its quite possible that I'll be writing code that does no addition but many regexps.
Well, except for Forth. Or maybe Lisp. And I'll bet Bourne could have come pretty damn close with "C" macros... look at BOURNEGOL for evidence.
Hmm, I didn't realize that either allowed their syntax to be extended to support perl style pattern operators or quoting.
The fact that when people using these other languages try to make them look like something else they're treated like a bad joke should tell you why this is WHY Perl is hateful. And the "Perl Hackers" crowing about how cool this hatefulness is is probably the most hateful thing about it.
I can think of a bunch of hateful things about Perl, but the regexp operator syntax is not one of them. -- perl -Mre=debug -e "/just|another|perl|hacker/"
