> I’m just a sucker for potentially extremely neat things with a long history of mostly failing—structural editing, live programming, graphical programming... I doubt anybody can reform me at this point.
There exists a cohort of people, so called “harbingers of failure”, that inexplicably prefer and buy new products which turn out to be flops. I suspect I am one, too.
You could probably be one of such people. I think you should document your preferences somewhere public, so that we know what else is likely to turn out to be a flop.
> tainted strings
At least in Perl’s implementation (one that is famous among me) it’s possible to untaint them accidentally by doing some innocuous operations which may not be directly related to their final purpose.
There exists a cohort of people, so called “harbingers of failure”, that inexplicably prefer and buy new products which turn out to be flops. I suspect I am one, too.
The topic of this strange kind of people seems to be discussed here quite a lot: https://hn.algolia.com/?q=harbingers+of+failure
You could probably be one of such people. I think you should document your preferences somewhere public, so that we know what else is likely to turn out to be a flop.
> tainted strings
At least in Perl’s implementation (one that is famous among me) it’s possible to untaint them accidentally by doing some innocuous operations which may not be directly related to their final purpose.