Re: Programming language vote - results

[John Sullivan <john@y.ddraig.goch.demon.co.uk>]

In article <34481248.4F0A@dynamite.com.au>, Alan E & Carmel J Brain
<aebrain@dynamite.com.au> writes
>John Sullivan wrote:
>> In 2 lines. Due to hardware
>> >limitations, this 2-liner was impossible to make "hidden" so I made it
>> >Cryptic, and self-modifying. 2 months later, even I couldn't figure out
>> >exactly what it did.
>> >
>> You can do exactly the same thing in most other languages.
>
>Disagree. Truly impenetrable FORTRAN can't be written in only 2 lines. I
>repeat 2 lines. Not 2 pages. 2 lines.
>For a real rat's nest of FORTRAN, you need more than 2 pages. 

What's all this crap about only two lines? Are you trying to claim somne
sort of prize -- "Look over here guys, I got this program down to just 2
lines. Bet you can't figure out what it does"!


>
>> So, why didn't you document your code when you wrote it? Don't blame APL
>> for your own inadequacies.
>
>*SIGH* Obviously I didn't make myself clear.
No, you made yourself only too clear.
>
>1. I had to write a security system.
>2. I couldn't stop any hacker from being able to read the source code.
>(It was interpreted). 
>3. So I deliberately tried to made it obscure, so no casual hacker could
>break in in a few minutes.
>4. I succeeded in my attempt.
That's obvious. You succeeded in preventing yourself knowing what your
own "program" was doing. Very secure system, that. 
>
>If the above isn't clear to you, I'll explain in more detail via e-mail.
Don't bother. I really couldn't care one way or the other.

I am fed up with hearing about people using unsuitable languages for the
jobs they have to do. This is just another boring example. Why you want
to boast about it beats me.

Lesson 1: Do not use an interpreted language to write a security system.
>
>Yes, the code was documented, giving the exact algorithms used, and said
>documentation (about 12 pages) was kept in a safe. The point was that
>even I, the author of the code, could not look at a mere 2 lines and
>figure out what the thing did, just from looking at the source.
Maybe you should read some textbooks on program design, the sort of
things I, and no doubt many other APLers also, was encouraged to read,
in order to learn how to program so you cannot get into the situation
you describe.

And I repeat, using different words this time, your attempted solution
to your problem was totally inadequate. Do not blame APL for this
inadequacy.

>
>Regarding inadequacies, I can't exactly blame APL for mine, there are
>too many! An inability to suffer fools gladly being one of them. 
You muat be very insufferable then. And try not to look in the mirror.

John Sullivan
-------------
remove the dots from the first three (Welsh) words for my real address