On 04/08/2015 10:02 AM, Stephen wrote:
>> “They think that if they’re not writing 80 lines of code to add two
>> numbers, they’re not using their education.”
>
> How true that one is.
> In SAP there is a trend for programmers to move into configuration.
> Their implementations are all about writing bespoke code to do what can
> be done with half an hour's training or a small change in methodology.
> Nightmare!

I have no idea what SAP is, but I'm told it was designed by Satan.

(So... that sounds basically like what most people think about Haskell, 
then!)

>> Yes, because if you read the linked Stack Overflow question, you'll see
>> how this function is actually "x = 1 : map (*2)", followed by no less
>> than 15 steps of deliberate obfuscation.
>
> Well, what do you expect when someone wants to make a point? ;-)

Seeing this almost makes me wonder if there's actually a say of writing 
Perl that's legible and comprehensible, and it's just that all the 
examples you see are actually incredibly badly written...

...and then I remember we're talking about Perl.

>> Jesus, just because a language requires you to *use your brain* and
>> learn to *think differently* does not mean it is "impossible to write
>> readable code with it". >:-[
>
> Do you think that this is because that using your brain is a threat to
> your management?
>
> Remember (no it is too long ago to actually remember) education for the
> working class and slaves. Was considered a bad thing for the ruling
> classes. It gave the lower orders ideas above their station.

I don't know, man... Where I work, trying to get hold of any definitive 
kind of design specification is basically impossible, because the boss 
can't be bothered to *think* about the actual implications of the 
feature we wants. He expects us clever people to just "make it work". 
Even if that's completely self-contradictory.

(And people wonder why software is poorly designed...)

Post a reply to this message