Hi all, I know why I should use "use strict;" but what happen if I use "use strict;" then if the code is OK, I delete this line? Shouldn't it work the same without this line if the code has no problems? Thanks. Teddy, orasnita@home.ro
![]() |
0 |
![]() |
why would you want to do that Octavian? "use strict" is a sanity safety net. What your saying is like "I know why I should use safety belt whilst driving my car but what if I took it off?" - of course you can do it but beware of the consequences. joel -----Original Message----- From: Octavian Rasnita [mailto:orasnita@home.ro] Sent: 04 June 2002 07:03 To: beginners-cgi@perl.org Subject: Why using use strict; Hi all, I know why I should use "use strict;" but what happen if I use "use strict;" then if the code is OK, I delete this line? Shouldn't it work the same without this line if the code has no problems? Thanks. Teddy, orasnita@home.ro -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: beginners-cgi-unsubscribe@perl.org For additional commands, e-mail: beginners-cgi-help@perl.org
![]() |
0 |
![]() |
Octavian Rasnita wrote at Tue, 04 Jun 2002 08:03:21 +0200: > Hi all, > > I know why I should use "use strict;" but what happen if I use "use strict;" then if the code is > OK, I delete this line? > use strict has (e.g.) the benefit for checking for undef values. They can come from the input. (User typed only enter, the file was empty, didn't exist, a library couldn't found, ...) That's no problem when your code works. But anytime, anywhen, that will happen. Without use strict; you will search many months for a simple error. Why ? An undef value means 0, "", (), {}, empty file in the right context. That means your script will at a random point recognise that the values are crazy. So you'll search the error somewhere else where it occurs. And even with use strict; your program won't really be slower. (Perhaps 0.1 %, but in the one week you're searching for errors, the processors have been become quicker (> 0.1 %)). Cheerio, Janek
![]() |
0 |
![]() |
> -----Original Message----- > From: Janek Schleicher [mailto:bigj@kamelfreund.de] > Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 6:19 AM > To: beginners-cgi@perl.org > Subject: Re: Why using use strict; > > > Octavian Rasnita wrote at Tue, 04 Jun 2002 08:03:21 +0200: > > > Hi all, > > > > I know why I should use "use strict;" but what happen if > I use "use strict;" then if the code is > > OK, I delete this line? > > > > use strict has (e.g.) the benefit for checking for undef values. Nope. That's one of the things "use warnings" (or -w) does.
![]() |
0 |
![]() |
> -----Original Message----- > From: Octavian Rasnita [mailto:orasnita@home.ro] > Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 2:03 AM > To: beginners-cgi@perl.org > Subject: Why using use strict; > > > Hi all, > > I know why I should use "use strict;" but what happen if I use "use > strict;" then if the code is OK, I delete this line? Nothing happens. > > > Shouldn't it work the same without this line if the code has > no problems? Yep. And it won't run any faster. A-L-W-A-Y-S "use strict". :)
![]() |
0 |
![]() |
So, in post after post after post I see the comment "always use strict"..= =2E I have seen threads where people are insulted because they dont... Every perl tutorial I've seen says you should always "use strict"... It apparently doesnt slow down code execution... If you dont "use strict", the perl monks will come and flay you... =20 All of this begs the obvious question(s)... Why the hell isnt "use strict" built into the language? Why doesnt perl = just=20 do all that automatically? just a question Cheers J- On Tuesday 04 June 2002 02:03 am, Octavian Rasnita wrote: > Hi all, > > I know why I should use "use strict;" but what happen if I use "use > strict;" then if the code is OK, I delete this line? > > > Shouldn't it work the same without this line if the code has no problem= s? > > Thanks. > > Teddy, > orasnita@home.ro
![]() |
0 |
![]() |
On Wednesday, June 5, 2002, at 05:51 , Bob Showalter wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Janek Schleicher [mailto:bigj@kamelfreund.de] >> Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 6:19 AM >> Octavian Rasnita wrote at Tue, 04 Jun 2002 08:03:21 +0200: >>> >>> I know why I should use "use strict;" but what happen if >> >> use strict has (e.g.) the benefit for checking for undef values. > > Nope. That's one of the things "use warnings" (or -w) does. Hence why the question really should be what if i drive down the street without the lap and shoulder belt on - the buzzer will finally go off.... The 'use strict' helps one with the stuff more protected in 'refs' and 'vars'..... Perchance not as important once one has a) opted to harden the code and never ever, ever, ever go with changing a line in it b) ported it completely to being a tomcat java servlet The problem that we are protecting ourselves from is the moment in the future when we have to take this piece of code down for some maintanance. ciao drieux --- ps: as for driving with safety equipage - its the time that you THINK it is ok, that will be the night you get to sit up in ER having a chat with the radiologist as you look at the X-rays and say: "Damn.... I thought that part of the facial bone structure was designed to prevent cracking that part of the bone structure over the sinuses..." Or should I park this story in the context of my LIFE NRA member cousin who capped a 9mm round through his tigh one evening from an unloaded handgun he was planning to clean because, well, he'd cleaned enough of them... and now has no problem understanding why we all consider all of them LOADED and LEATHAL - PERIOD - no discussion, no debate. UNPROTECTED PERL CODE CAN CREEP IN AND EAT YOU!!!!!
![]() |
0 |
![]() |
because Perl has evolved over time? joel -----Original Message----- From: Jake [mailto:jwebster@olemiss.edu] Sent: 05 June 2002 13:56 To: beginners-cgi@perl.org Subject: Why do we even HAVE to... (was: Why using use strict;) So, in post after post after post I see the comment "always use strict"... I have seen threads where people are insulted because they dont... Every perl tutorial I've seen says you should always "use strict"... It apparently doesnt slow down code execution... If you dont "use strict", the perl monks will come and flay you... All of this begs the obvious question(s)... Why the hell isnt "use strict" built into the language? Why doesnt perl just do all that automatically? just a question Cheers J- On Tuesday 04 June 2002 02:03 am, Octavian Rasnita wrote: > Hi all, > > I know why I should use "use strict;" but what happen if I use "use > strict;" then if the code is OK, I delete this line? > > > Shouldn't it work the same without this line if the code has no problems? > > Thanks. > > Teddy, > orasnita@home.ro -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: beginners-cgi-unsubscribe@perl.org For additional commands, e-mail: beginners-cgi-help@perl.org
![]() |
0 |
![]() |
To all: Okay, there have been a few comments about the merits of using strict, but I thought I would toss up a meta-argument. It's true that posters who post code without "strict" are generally reminded by several replies that they should have used strict, but the respondents also usually try to answer the question. Personally, I would never think of dropping a note to Lincoln Stein for not using strict in CGI.pm or Damian Conway for not using strict in anything. People who are reminded to use strict are usually (not always) people for whom strict would be an enormous benefit. As for Perlmonks (brought up in one reply), the ones who have been around for a while are usually very concerned not just about correctness (a program does what it should and no more), but also about quality (a program that works can still be an unmaintainable piece of crud). So, when I see someone who failed to use strict and then typed $recieved, I'll point out the misspelling, but I'll also point out that using strict would have caught that error *at compile time*, rather than have them pull their hair out for hours trying to figure out what's buggy. Quality, thus, tends to lead to correctness. I could go on for hours as to why this is the case, but really, who *doesn't* want correct programs? I strongly recommend to every Perl programmer that they should hang out at Perlmonks. Why? Because of a saying amongst mathematicians (which applies very strongly to programmers, too): First-rate mathematicians want to hang around first-rate mathematicians. Second-rate mathematicians want to hang around third-rate mathematicians. The reason for that is left as an exercise for the reader :) Cheers, Curtis "Ovid" Poe ===== "Ovid" on http://www.perlmonks.org/ Someone asked me how to count to 10 in Perl: push@A,$_ for reverse q.e...q.n.;for(@A){$_=unpack(q|c|,$_);@a=split//; shift@a;shift@a if $a[$[]eq$[;$_=join q||,@a};print $_,$/for reverse @A __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
![]() |
0 |
![]() |
Im a bit worried that a few of my statements have been misconstrued, and = I was=20 concerned that would happen when I first posted. Let me try to clarify -= and=20 I should also preface this with I am primarily a C/C++ programmer (I'm=20 addicted to the Qt toolkit) who really uses perl only when he needs it. I was not questioning whether one should or shouldn't "use strict". In t= he=20 brief time I have spent coding in perl, I have learned the hard way how=20 useful it is. =20 my question is why the basic functionality of "use strict" isnt directly = built=20 into the perl compiler/interpreter? Why, for instance, isnt it simply=20 required by perl to use "my" or "our" or whatever when one first introduc= es a=20 variable? Sure, not using strict may save (advanced?) programmers a few=20 keystrokes, but is that really the only reason? =20 I'm sure that somewhere along the line, the designers of perl had to have= at=20 least considered this...and I'm also sure that they had very good reasons= for=20 having "strict" remain a module that one can choose to use or not use. I would simply like to know their reasons. As for the perlmonks, as far as I'm concerned, that is one of the best=20 computer language websites/cultures that I have come across. Almost=20 everything I know about perl has come from either that site or this list,= and=20 I admire the fact that you and your colleagues are willing to hang out in= =20 newsgroups like this and patiently answer questions from hard headed newb= ies=20 like myself :) =20 As for your remark about quality leading to correctness, I couldn't agree= =20 more. Jeez, I've read "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintanance" 6 time= s. Respectfully, Jake On Wednesday 05 June 2002 11:40 am, Ovid wrote: > To all: > > Okay, there have been a few comments about the merits of using strict, = but > I thought I would toss up a meta-argument. > > It's true that posters who post code without "strict" are generally > reminded by several replies that they should have used strict, but the > respondents also usually try to answer the question. Personally, I woul= d > never think of dropping a note to Lincoln Stein for not using strict in > CGI.pm or Damian Conway for not using strict in anything. People who a= re > reminded to use strict are usually (not always) people for whom strict > would be an enormous benefit. > > As for Perlmonks (brought up in one reply), the ones who have been arou= nd > for a while are usually very concerned not just about correctness (a > program does what it should and no more), but also about quality (a pro= gram > that works can still be an unmaintainable piece of crud). So, when I s= ee > someone who failed to use strict and then typed $recieved, I'll point o= ut > the misspelling, but I'll also point out that using strict would have > caught that error *at compile time*, rather than have them pull their h= air > out for hours trying to figure out what's buggy. > > Quality, thus, tends to lead to correctness. I could go on for hours a= s to > why this is the case, but really, who *doesn't* want correct programs? > > I strongly recommend to every Perl programmer that they should hang out= at > Perlmonks. Why? Because of a saying amongst mathematicians (which appl= ies > very strongly to programmers, too): > > First-rate mathematicians want to hang around first-rate > mathematicians. Second-rate mathematicians want to hang > around third-rate mathematicians. > > The reason for that is left as an exercise for the reader :) > > Cheers, > Curtis "Ovid" Poe > > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > "Ovid" on http://www.perlmonks.org/ > Someone asked me how to count to 10 in Perl: > push@A,$_ for reverse q.e...q.n.;for(@A){$_=3Dunpack(q|c|,$_);@a=3Dspli= t//; > shift@a;shift@a if $a[$[]eq$[;$_=3Djoin q||,@a};print $_,$/for reverse = @A > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup > http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
![]() |
0 |
![]() |
--- Jake <jwebster@olemiss.edu> wrote: > Im a bit worried that a few of my statements have been misconstrued, and I was > concerned that would happen when I first posted. Jake, No worries, I didn't misconstrue your comments. I deliberately changed the subject in hopes that no one would think I was directly replying to what you asked. Unfortunately, by making a reference to something you wrote, *I* was possibly misconstrued. I was just trying to make a general statement to the effect that "we improve by understanding best practices", though perhaps I was a bit ham-handed in getting the point across. In fact, I deliberately did not answer your question since I was trying to make that other point, so I guess I'll go ahead and answer the question now. > my question is why the basic functionality of "use strict" isnt directly built > into the perl compiler/interpreter? If you check out some of my modules on the CPAN, you find that I regularly need to disable portions of strict in my code. Some programmers (Damian Conway springs to mind) do this with such frequency that it would be annoying to turn strict off, then on, then off, then on again, etc. Personally, I'll take the annoyance. It's not the default because many who use Perl are just using it for a lightning quick tool to get things done. They want to focus on the task and not on "am I having a scoping issue here?" Many disagree with this (I have my reservations), but this is so prevalent that it was decided to retain this feature. Cheers, Curtis "Ovid" Poe ===== "Ovid" on http://www.perlmonks.org/ Someone asked me how to count to 10 in Perl: push@A,$_ for reverse q.e...q.n.;for(@A){$_=unpack(q|c|,$_);@a=split//; shift@a;shift@a if $a[$[]eq$[;$_=join q||,@a};print $_,$/for reverse @A __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
![]() |
0 |
![]() |
On Wednesday, June 5, 2002, at 08:40 , Ovid wrote: [..] > > First-rate mathematicians want to hang around first-rate > mathematicians. Second-rate mathematicians want to hang > around third-rate mathematicians. > > The reason for that is left as an exercise for the reader :) > > Cheers, > Curtis "Ovid" Poe First let us address the logic fault in your opening premise. The reason that many Perl Module Writers do not impose 'use strict' and/or 'use warning' - is precisely because of their obligation to 'backward compatibility' - and is done with a clear understanding that a core tenant of Perl Orthodoxy is that while we do not wish folks to rummage around in one's living room - we are not planning to put up trip mines to keep them out. Hence whining at any of the 'canonical' perl module writers for following Orthodoxy over 'good advice' - would be less than useful. Let us now move onto the problem of resolving 'ranking of programmers' as a concept in itself - and specifically SILLY in the perl environment to begin with.... Perchance the pinnacle of FOLLY in the cgi/mod_perl space - since this is a place where we have to deal with the fact that the 'standards committee' was functionally clueless to begin with when they ginned up the HTTP/HTML "standards" from the gitGo - and have compounded that folly by openly admitting their total cluelessness with XHTML - the 'we have no hope of formalization at all'! How exactly were we planning to rank programmer's who are great kernel hackers - but write, well, lame perl code? My old sense who is now in the bowels of VxWork based solutions for 802.11 work - had that coffee break moment that he had to actually 'work it' to understand some of the new perl tricks i use.... is he better than me or worse than me???? Or put the other way around - if the requirements are for this OS and to hit these performance numbers for the OLTP system - is it 'better' to dodge the whole 'portability' game - and get those XS's tied tightly to this OS's implementation of their unique wonders - for the speed... knowing that were we to change platforms we have some serious porting issues to address down the road??? But at least we have the basic perl inteface into the OLTP exposed in a reasonable way??? I can appreciate for the devotee's of the academic world - there is the clear moral imperative to having 'ranking and orders' - since without them how would one know if one had to write the valedictorian speach, or be the person working the 'back up strategy' incase the valedictorian takes a bullet.... But what about out here in the real world??? You know, where code gets generated by folks who are not worrying about the inter-departmental politics of how their pious posturing will be perceived one way or the other??? The 'dumb grunts' who merely have to get it to work. But clearly - if i felt that Perl were a specific field of mathematics, then I would of course find your argument so compelling - If I were worried at all about how I 'ranked' in the academic world to begin with. But what if 12 years in the industry helped me better understand how frighteningly silly that Degree in Computer Science really was to begin with? What if the process is really about seeing how others solve problems? Or finding interesting problems to solve for real people with real concerns about how to really do FOO???? What if the best thing to happen to the Shaolin Monasteries was that they were sacked and burned - and allowed them to find the same level of 'friar' { that old english phrase for 'free monk' } that helped them get in touch with their 'ronin' ways??? What if wandering the lanes with nothing more than a rice bowl was a great way to see the world and actually do good? Or would this be the wrong place to propose that if only Larry Wall had been a team player and been willing to do what needed to be done to make things in sed/awk more ellegant - and be a 'real first water' programmer rather than someone out to impress the 3rd tier wankers... But the same would also apply to the fact that those CERN wankers really should have been content with telnet and ftp - since clearly this whole skank with the lame, lame, lame HTTP protocol was merely there because those were so clearly lame types who were never going to be 'real programmers'.... But barring that, we so clearly agree that providing best practices and something like a standard is probably the best that we will be able to do - since most RealProgrammers[tm] will wind up doing things in ways we might not have expected - just like RealEndUsers[tm] tend to do with the code we wrote things we hadn't thought about.... God, if Only we had been First Water Wonders... Rather than merely Perl Coders.... ciao drieux ---
![]() |
0 |
![]() |
--0-1013564303-1023305335=:97444 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Does anyone know how to capture the carriage return to prevent a user from accidentally submitting the form by pressing 'return' before they actually finish completing the form? -Rob --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Sign-up for Video Highlights of 2002 FIFA World Cup --0-1013564303-1023305335=:97444--
![]() |
0 |
![]() |
If your as lazy as I am and hate to type you wouldn't have this debate.......I can't remember ever writing a script that I started from scratch for years now. I almost always start with an existing script cause 9 times out of 10 it has something in it I'll need anyway.......and I am the cut 'n' paste king of all times. I even have an array of smart key shortcuts on all of my computers. But even still I don't think it would bug me to type in 2 little words :o) Charles PS I am know as the slopiest programmer in the world just for your edufication but I beleive it's the end results that gets me by :o) Ovid wrote: > To all: > > Okay, there have been a few comments about the merits of using strict, but I thought I would toss > up a meta-argument. > > It's true that posters who post code without "strict" are generally reminded by several replies > that they should have used strict, but the respondents also usually try to answer the question. > Personally, I would never think of dropping a note to Lincoln Stein for not using strict in CGI.pm > or Damian Conway for not using strict in anything. People who are reminded to use strict are > usually (not always) people for whom strict would be an enormous benefit. > > As for Perlmonks (brought up in one reply), the ones who have been around for a while are usually > very concerned not just about correctness (a program does what it should and no more), but also > about quality (a program that works can still be an unmaintainable piece of crud). So, when I see > someone who failed to use strict and then typed $recieved, I'll point out the misspelling, but > I'll also point out that using strict would have caught that error *at compile time*, rather than > have them pull their hair out for hours trying to figure out what's buggy. > > Quality, thus, tends to lead to correctness. I could go on for hours as to why this is the case, > but really, who *doesn't* want correct programs? > > I strongly recommend to every Perl programmer that they should hang out at Perlmonks. Why? > Because of a saying amongst mathematicians (which applies very strongly to programmers, too): > > First-rate mathematicians want to hang around first-rate > mathematicians. Second-rate mathematicians want to hang > around third-rate mathematicians. > > The reason for that is left as an exercise for the reader :) > > Cheers, > Curtis "Ovid" Poe > > ===== > "Ovid" on http://www.perlmonks.org/ > Someone asked me how to count to 10 in Perl: > push@A,$_ for reverse q.e...q.n.;for(@A){$_=unpack(q|c|,$_);@a=split//; > shift@a;shift@a if $a[$[]eq$[;$_=join q||,@a};print $_,$/for reverse @A > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup > http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: beginners-cgi-unsubscribe@perl.org > For additional commands, e-mail: beginners-cgi-help@perl.org
![]() |
0 |
![]() |
I don't think that "use strict" is necessary in a finished script. I think anything that takes up machine cycles and isn't needed in the finished script should remain mobile and this is probably the main reason they keep it mobile........you might say "but how many macine cycles could it possibly eat up" when you should really say "why not keep it an option". good practice is to make things available that are not absolutely needed as mobile functions. Charles Jake wrote: > Im a bit worried that a few of my statements have been misconstrued, and I was > concerned that would happen when I first posted. Let me try to clarify - and > I should also preface this with I am primarily a C/C++ programmer (I'm > addicted to the Qt toolkit) who really uses perl only when he needs it. > > I was not questioning whether one should or shouldn't "use strict". In the > brief time I have spent coding in perl, I have learned the hard way how > useful it is. > > my question is why the basic functionality of "use strict" isnt directly built > into the perl compiler/interpreter? Why, for instance, isnt it simply > required by perl to use "my" or "our" or whatever when one first introduces a > variable? Sure, not using strict may save (advanced?) programmers a few > keystrokes, but is that really the only reason? > > I'm sure that somewhere along the line, the designers of perl had to have at > least considered this...and I'm also sure that they had very good reasons for > having "strict" remain a module that one can choose to use or not use. > I would simply like to know their reasons. > > As for the perlmonks, as far as I'm concerned, that is one of the best > computer language websites/cultures that I have come across. Almost > everything I know about perl has come from either that site or this list, and > I admire the fact that you and your colleagues are willing to hang out in > newsgroups like this and patiently answer questions from hard headed newbies > like myself :) > > As for your remark about quality leading to correctness, I couldn't agree > more. Jeez, I've read "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintanance" 6 times. > > Respectfully, > Jake > > On Wednesday 05 June 2002 11:40 am, Ovid wrote: > > To all: > > > > Okay, there have been a few comments about the merits of using strict, but > > I thought I would toss up a meta-argument. > > > > It's true that posters who post code without "strict" are generally > > reminded by several replies that they should have used strict, but the > > respondents also usually try to answer the question. Personally, I would > > never think of dropping a note to Lincoln Stein for not using strict in > > CGI.pm or Damian Conway for not using strict in anything. People who are > > reminded to use strict are usually (not always) people for whom strict > > would be an enormous benefit. > > > > As for Perlmonks (brought up in one reply), the ones who have been around > > for a while are usually very concerned not just about correctness (a > > program does what it should and no more), but also about quality (a program > > that works can still be an unmaintainable piece of crud). So, when I see > > someone who failed to use strict and then typed $recieved, I'll point out > > the misspelling, but I'll also point out that using strict would have > > caught that error *at compile time*, rather than have them pull their hair > > out for hours trying to figure out what's buggy. > > > > Quality, thus, tends to lead to correctness. I could go on for hours as to > > why this is the case, but really, who *doesn't* want correct programs? > > > > I strongly recommend to every Perl programmer that they should hang out at > > Perlmonks. Why? Because of a saying amongst mathematicians (which applies > > very strongly to programmers, too): > > > > First-rate mathematicians want to hang around first-rate > > mathematicians. Second-rate mathematicians want to hang > > around third-rate mathematicians. > > > > The reason for that is left as an exercise for the reader :) > > > > Cheers, > > Curtis "Ovid" Poe > > > > ===== > > "Ovid" on http://www.perlmonks.org/ > > Someone asked me how to count to 10 in Perl: > > push@A,$_ for reverse q.e...q.n.;for(@A){$_=unpack(q|c|,$_);@a=split//; > > shift@a;shift@a if $a[$[]eq$[;$_=join q||,@a};print $_,$/for reverse @A > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup > > http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: beginners-cgi-unsubscribe@perl.org > For additional commands, e-mail: beginners-cgi-help@perl.org
![]() |
0 |
![]() |
On Wednesday, June 5, 2002, at 08:40 , Ovid wrote: [..] > > First-rate mathematicians want to hang around first-rate > mathematicians. Second-rate mathematicians want to hang > around third-rate mathematicians. > > The reason for that is left as an exercise for the reader :) So, ignoring for the moment drieux's eloquent case for calling this a bogus distinction (if I understood what he said, which isn't always easy), if we assume for the sake of argument that a newbie is a third-rate Perl programmer (although granted s/he may be first rate in another pond), what does that make you experienced people hanging around with us? :-) [Besides wonderful and nice people, of course?] And then drieux said: > But what if 12 years in the industry helped me better understand how > frighteningly silly that Degree in Computer Science really was to begin > with? Au contraire. I know it is fashionable to wonder what all that education was good for, but after about 10 years myself, I find that I have repeatedly been able to pick up new languages and packages at a faster rate than many of my peers in the corporate IT world, and I credit the value of the more conceptually abstract 4-year CS degree as compared to the very concrete and limited 2-year business programming degree of some of my colleagues. Having learned abstractly about algorithms, operating system internals, compilers, and so on may not be something I use everyday (not to even mention functional programming and CS theory, much of which I've no doubt forgotten), but it's given me a higher framework in which to categorize and relate new knowledge, which is what learning is all about. The tradeoff is that I actually graduated knowing nothing about how to use any particular commercial databases, for instance, but I knew about tree structures and hash tables, and once you know the concepts and theory, it's easy to pick up specific commercial implementations. But then, I never went to grad school or into academia, so perhaps I'm really just one of the middle-tier people myself! :-) > Or would this be the wrong place to propose that if only Larry Wall > had been a team player and been willing to do what needed to be done > to make things in sed/awk more ellegant - and be a 'real first water' > programmer rather than someone out to impress the 3rd tier wankers... > > But the same would also apply to the fact that those CERN wankers > really should have been content with telnet and ftp - since clearly > this whole skank with the lame, lame, lame HTTP protocol was merely > there because those were so clearly lame types who were never going > to be 'real programmers'.. Hey, for that matter, what was so wrong with assembly language? ;-) - John ===== "Now it's over, I'm dead, and I haven't done anything that I want; or, I'm still alive, and there's nothing I want to do." - They Might Be Giants, http://www.tmbg.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
![]() |
0 |
![]() |