(Honest question) what do you feel that your comment added to the one above it?
Are you suggesting that "dumb verbose code" might not be legible (I suppose that's technically possible, but seems unlikely to happen by accident)?
Or are you implying that Perl consists of "hieroglyphics" and so is not a suitable language for writing legible code? This, I think, would miss the point - deepsun was saying that, in both Perl and in awk, readers prefer legible code over cleverness - to claim that Perl cannot be legible at _all_ requires a little more justification, and would probably be disputed on the grounds that familiarity with a language's conventions is often a prerequisite for legibility.
I think it’s additive. We like to feel smart and can over complicate things. I much prefer a boring non-trendy approach that’s easy to maintain over new hotness every time.
Yes, I was basically saying that terse code is often unreadable due to the terseness coming from what amounts to a weird compression algorithm that can satisfy a compiler but buries information for humans in weird syntax instead of something resembling English.
Are you suggesting that "dumb verbose code" might not be legible (I suppose that's technically possible, but seems unlikely to happen by accident)?
Or are you implying that Perl consists of "hieroglyphics" and so is not a suitable language for writing legible code? This, I think, would miss the point - deepsun was saying that, in both Perl and in awk, readers prefer legible code over cleverness - to claim that Perl cannot be legible at _all_ requires a little more justification, and would probably be disputed on the grounds that familiarity with a language's conventions is often a prerequisite for legibility.