monkdiscuss BooK <P>It looks like JAPH scripts are often misinterpreted for obfuscation stuff, when often they are not.</P> <P>Actually, I have downvoted several JAPH nodes for not being "obfuscated enough" for me... Since I seldomly gave advice on how to make those better (in my view), this led to bad feelings/votes.</P> <P> After a discussion in CB with [kel] and others, we found that maybe the problem is elsewhere: JAPH and obfuscation are actually different. Check this summary:</P> <table> <tr><td align=center><b>JAPH</b></td><td align=center><b>Obfuscation</b></td></tr> <tr><td colspan=2><HR NOSHADE></td></tr> <tr><td><ul> <li>prints "Just Another Perl Hacker" <li>discovery of features <li>less used features used in unusual ways <li>TIMTOWTDI </ul> </td><td> <ul> <li>does something useful/funnny/powerful <li>hard to understand/read programs <li>an artistic approach to the code <li>should confuse B::Deparse </ul> </td></tr> </table> <P>It looks like there is a need for a second section, dedicated to JAPH writers. When they get used to those twisted ways of using our beloved Perl, they can switch to Obfuscation...</P>