Comments on: A Defense of Prototypes, or, Why Does Tom Christiansen Hate Perl? http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/posts/a-defense-of-prototypes/ programming, politics, & other religious issues Wed, 08 Feb 2012 14:16:00 +0000 hourly 1 By: Ruby Can’t Be Parsed? | Enfranchised Mind http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/posts/a-defense-of-prototypes/#comment-36749 Ruby Can’t Be Parsed? | Enfranchised Mind Mon, 17 Aug 2009 14:15:54 +0000 http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/archive/2005/10/19/34#comment-36749 [...] If so, then parsing Ruby is equivalent to solving the halting problem. The proof is the same as Perl Cannot Be Parsed: A Formal Proof, with appropriate translation of the code. Notably, this proof is thwarted by the use of perl prototypes (unless you have optional arguments): more on prototypes at A Defense of Prototypes, or, Why Does Tom Christiansen Hate Perl?. [...] [...] If so, then parsing Ruby is equivalent to solving the halting problem. The proof is the same as Perl Cannot Be Parsed: A Formal Proof, with appropriate translation of the code. Notably, this proof is thwarted by the use of perl prototypes (unless you have optional arguments): more on prototypes at A Defense of Prototypes, or, Why Does Tom Christiansen Hate Perl?. [...]

]]> By: Enfranchised Mind » Ruby is the Future http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/posts/a-defense-of-prototypes/#comment-36524 Enfranchised Mind » Ruby is the Future Fri, 24 Jul 2009 14:56:56 +0000 http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/archive/2005/10/19/34#comment-36524 [...] occasional visits to dot-Net and OCaml. For a long while, I became enamored with static typing (cite, cite, cite), but through my work with Cornerstone and working with Scala, I’ve had a [...] [...] occasional visits to dot-Net and OCaml. For a long while, I became enamored with static typing (cite, cite, cite), but through my work with Cornerstone and working with Scala, I’ve had a [...]

]]> By: Enfranchised Mind » A Realization on Maintainability http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/posts/a-defense-of-prototypes/#comment-33276 Enfranchised Mind » A Realization on Maintainability Fri, 23 May 2008 14:48:07 +0000 http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/archive/2005/10/19/34#comment-33276 [...] Despite what a certain curmudgeonly ex-coworker of mine might claim, huge Perl scripts are a maintenance nightmare. They’re really a pain. Ranging from surprising overrides of $_ to wrong arguments being passed around to funky results from eval to magical exceptions, the major Perl applications I’ve worked on have had a lot of pain. The best helper to solve this problem is perl -c, use warnings; and use strict; — in other words, bringing more restrictive syntax and typing into the system. Prototypes even help, despite their unpopularity. [...] [...] Despite what a certain curmudgeonly ex-coworker of mine might claim, huge Perl scripts are a maintenance nightmare. They’re really a pain. Ranging from surprising overrides of $_ to wrong arguments being passed around to funky results from eval to magical exceptions, the major Perl applications I’ve worked on have had a lot of pain. The best helper to solve this problem is perl -c, use warnings; and use strict; — in other words, bringing more restrictive syntax and typing into the system. Prototypes even help, despite their unpopularity. [...]

]]> By: Enfranchised Mind http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/posts/a-defense-of-prototypes/#comment-31311 Enfranchised Mind Wed, 11 Jul 2007 15:18:51 +0000 http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/archive/2005/10/19/34#comment-31311 <strong>The “Hole in the middle” pattern...</strong> Surfing on Chia’s Functional Longing article, I wanted to post an experience I had recently, working on some C# code. The point of this blog entry is that it’s not what a programming language make possible, it’s what a programming la... The “Hole in the middle” pattern…

Surfing on Chia’s Functional Longing article, I wanted to post an experience I had recently, working on some C# code. The point of this blog entry is that it’s not what a programming language make possible, it’s what a programming la…

]]> By: bhurt-aw http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/posts/a-defense-of-prototypes/#comment-22 bhurt-aw Wed, 19 Oct 2005 17:47:04 +0000 http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/archive/2005/10/19/34#comment-22 I think I, Mr. Ocaml Advocate, am going to take a contrarian position here, and argue that <em>within the context of perl</em> prototypes <em>are</em> a bad idea. OK, I'll give you a minute to pick yourself back up off the floor and for the heart palpitations to die down. Breathe. I disbelieve in golden hammer languages, the one true language that is the right, or even workable, language for all purposes. This is true for Ocaml- you shouldn't write an OS in it, nor is it a good language for groking through log files looking for port scanners. It's true for C- C is also a cruddy language for groking through port scanners, or just about any language where you're not directly interfacing with hardware. C++ is exception for being the wrong language for any purpose. And it's true for Perl. So the question becomes: what is Perl, what is it good for? Perl started life as a performance hack for bourne shell scripts. And, to a large extent, it still is. Perl is a good language for those short scripts to grok through log files, make sure the proper daemons are running, etc. In this context, prototypes are too heavy weight- at best, they're meaningless noise, at worst they're impediments. If the entire program is 100 lines long, there is no advantage to black boxes- you can hold the entire program in your head, as such that is the most efficient way to approach the problem. It's only when you're programming in the large that prototypes become usefull, and very shortly thereafter (IMHO) required. The car analogy applies here- what is the better vehicle, the 18-wheeled semitruck, or the Ford escort? Well, it depends. If what you want to do is to run down to the grocery store for a loaf of bread and a gallon of milk, the escort is a much more practical vehicle. If what you want to do is haul a household's worth of stuff from one city to another, the semitruck is a much more practical vehicle. I think I, Mr. Ocaml Advocate, am going to take a contrarian position here, and argue that within the context of perl prototypes are a bad idea.

OK, I’ll give you a minute to pick yourself back up off the floor and for the heart palpitations to die down. Breathe.

I disbelieve in golden hammer languages, the one true language that is the right, or even workable, language for all purposes. This is true for Ocaml- you shouldn’t write an OS in it, nor is it a good language for groking through log files looking for port scanners. It’s true for C- C is also a cruddy language for groking through port scanners, or just about any language where you’re not directly interfacing with hardware. C++ is exception for being the wrong language for any purpose. And it’s true for Perl.

So the question becomes: what is Perl, what is it good for? Perl started life as a performance hack for bourne shell scripts. And, to a large extent, it still is. Perl is a good language for those short scripts to grok through log files, make sure the proper daemons are running, etc.

In this context, prototypes are too heavy weight- at best, they’re meaningless noise, at worst they’re impediments. If the entire program is 100 lines long, there is no advantage to black boxes- you can hold the entire program in your head, as such that is the most efficient way to approach the problem. It’s only when you’re programming in the large that prototypes become usefull, and very shortly thereafter (IMHO) required.

The car analogy applies here- what is the better vehicle, the 18-wheeled semitruck, or the Ford escort? Well, it depends. If what you want to do is to run down to the grocery store for a loaf of bread and a gallon of milk, the escort is a much more practical vehicle. If what you want to do is haul a household’s worth of stuff from one city to another, the semitruck is a much more practical vehicle.

]]>