* Douglas Livingstone <rampant / gmail.com> [0159 22:59]:

> .... (For me, a good programmer will be able to work in both modes:
> a problem may recieve an "ugly" solution to start with, but over time
> that would be refactored into "nice" code. If it wasn't, then the ugly
> code would more than likely build up and choke the applicatin into a
> ground up rewrite, much like fat deposits building up in arteries.)

That's the gist of what i was trying to say earlier about my perl experience

* I write a small script in perl
		(because I don't have time to run an advocacy campaign and train all
		the other guys in ruby. they're all too busy to sit through a rant.)
	  I swear a bit through all the $ and for loops but it's fairly painless.
* it gets cobbled up into a working prototype
* we trial it
* it ends up being a production script because too many people find out about it
* someone asks for a feature, I bolt it on
* repeat the last step a few times
	(some stuff breaks due to my testing being 'that looks alright')
* it passes some kind of critical mass where I want to refactor the whole shambles
* I find it incredibly hard to do and wish I'd bitten the bullet and used ruby to start with

the last point is a consequence of perls shitty oop mainly - I find it nigh on
impossible to do effective unit testing in perl, and it encourages bodging.
At least with ruby my quick and dirty hacks are hidden away behind a method
and testable, lifes' too short to grit your teeth through all the $self->method($thing);
rubbish.

(admittedly the perl version has a test suite - or 'the university'
as I call it. The phone rings instead of the bar going red.)

-- 
'If we can hit that bull's-eye, the rest of the dominoes will fall like a
house of cards... Checkmate!'
		-- Zapp. Brannigan
Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns