introspection (and Perl 6)

[Andy Wardley]

Ovid wrote:
 > If they can't read the language I write in, that's their fault.

I frobnitzed randomly:
 > Prognost!  Nimple friz blicket par goodlim extrapulous! Po do no jimble
 > frubnest?

chromatic, among others, counter-naggled me:
 > [...] hire people who know the language [...]

Enough! Enough! I repent!  [*]

It was supposed to be a throw-away comment.  A leaf node, not a branch.

Ovid has already hit the nail on the head (before I half-quoted him):

 > In short, if people can't read the code I write, that's my fault.
 > If they can't read the language I write in, that's their fault.

The point I was adding (and I'm sure *some* of you must have got the joke),
was a pedantic "within reason". If you want to be understood then there are
times when you must also consider the language that you choose to express
yourself in. Someone posting to LPM in Esperanto, for example, isn't likely to
get widely read (Pirate speak be a differ matter tho', aarrrghhh).

Anyway, back to what Perl 6 ^can do and HOW...

If Perl 6 includes a bunch of new operators that a significant part of the
programming-at-large community find triple-non-plussing, then we would be well
advised to consider the target audience before sprinkling them too liberally
around our source code, especially if there are alphanumeric alternatives
(like 'HOW') available that are effectively self-documenting.

It may be a valid defence to say "This is all standard Perl 6 code..." but if
there aren't any other people on your team who speak Perl 6 then the chances
are you'll soon be recoding it in Python. Or Java.

Please, let's not go there.

A


[*] Anyone seen my coat?