[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Search] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: OmniMark Rant (was Re: [FWP] A fun bit of obfuscation)

To: fwp@technofile.org
Subject: Re: OmniMark Rant (was Re: [FWP] A fun bit of obfuscation)
From: Nathan Torkington <gnat@frii.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 12:37:52 -0600 (MDT)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9910131208160.19049-100000@zeppo.i-2.com>
References: <19991013122948.B21561@panix.com><Pine.LNX.4.10.9910131208160.19049-100000@zeppo.i-2.com>

Tushar Samant writes:
> legendary status of, say, "csh considered harmful" can't be repli-
> cated by shouting "Perl sucks".

Interesting choice of example.  Tom Christiansen wrote "csh
programming considered harmful" (note: only programming, not the shell
as a whole).

Nat

==== Want to unsubscribe from Fun With Perl?  Well, if you insist...
==== Send email to <fwp-request@technofile.org> with message _body_
====   unsubscribe

Follow-Ups:
- Re: OmniMark Rant (was Re: [FWP] A fun bit of obfuscation)
  - From: Tushar Samant <D@i-works.com>

References:
- Re: OmniMark Rant (was Re: [FWP] A fun bit of obfuscation)
  - From: "David H. Adler" <dha@panix.com>
- Re: OmniMark Rant (was Re: [FWP] A fun bit of obfuscation)
  - From: Tushar Samant <D@i-works.com>

Prev by Date: Re: OmniMark Rant (was Re: [FWP] A fun bit of obfuscation)
Next by Date: Re: OmniMark Rant (was Re: [FWP] A fun bit of obfuscation)
Prev by thread: Re: OmniMark Rant (was Re: [FWP] A fun bit of obfuscation)
Next by thread: Re: OmniMark Rant (was Re: [FWP] A fun bit of obfuscation)
Navigation: Date Index | Thread Index | Search | Other lists at bumppo.net