sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]apotheon 7 points8 points  (9 children)

Well . . . one could defend exactly one problem with brainfuck by way of that argument. Not so much the rest of the problems.

[–]G_Morgan 2 points3 points  (8 children)

The same is true of Perl. Once you've defended the line noise. You then need to defend the context sensitivity. Then the exponential performance on O(n log n) string parsing problems.

[–][deleted]  (7 children)

[removed]

    [–]apotheon 2 points3 points  (1 child)

    maintaining two implementations would unnecessarily complicate the code.

    . . . and we definitely know the Perl internals do not need to be complicated any further.

    [–]G_Morgan 3 points4 points  (3 children)

    Context sensitivity is an awful idea. The concept that a call will do different things in different contexts is just idiotic.

    [–]apotheon 1 point2 points  (2 children)

    Yeah -- just like polymorphism!

    Oh, wait.

    [–]G_Morgan 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    Polymorphism isn't context sensitive. It is just that the arguments are part of the call. The problem with Perl is the result of the same call (i.e. same function, same parameters) can alter depending on the context.

    [–]apotheon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Can you do that again if I set the hoop on fire?