[NetBehaviour] Code Is Not Literature

Pall Thayer pallthay at gmail.com
Fri Jan 24 03:56:41 CET 2014

Everything needs to be decoded but it comes down to context. Someone
attempting to decode my perl example as code might become very confused. It
doesn't serve a purpose as a computer program. If you approach perl code as
always having a useful function, it's not going to push your buttons. I
could even see a serious perl programmer overlooking the serious message of
the text. Who knows... perhaps I really am asking someone to push me off a
cliff... but that's not what the code means. It has nothing to do with
pushing a person, much less pushing a person over a cliff. It's simply
adding an element to an array. And then, to top it all off, the array
doesn't get used. Makes no sense. Or does it?

On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 9:38 PM, mez breeze <netwurker at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Pall Thayer <pallthay at gmail.com> wrote:
>> And, as a reply to Seibel's comments, do we not "decode" literature?
> Mezangelle certainly needs to be decoded. Sometimes I even help out with
> that [but only by "translating"/unpacking it into a diluted English
> version, like here: http://wishforyouand.me/2014/01/23/day-20/ ].
> --
> | facebook.com/MezBreezeDesign <http://www.facebook.com/MezBreezeDesign>
> | twitter.com/MezBreezeDesign
> | en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mez_Breeze
> _______________________________________________
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

Pall Thayer
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.netbehaviour.org/pipermail/netbehaviour/attachments/20140123/9c13482b/attachment.html>

More information about the NetBehaviour mailing list