Front page | perl.beginners |
Postings from April 2011
Re: Nature of this list
From: Rob Dixon
April 21, 2011 10:21
Re: Nature of this list
Message ID: 4DB067A3.firstname.lastname@example.org
On 21/04/2011 17:25, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
>>>>>> "Rob" == Rob Dixon<email@example.com> writes:
> Rob> As I mentioned in a previous post, you have softened recently.
> So Rob> it is likely that your life has improved and you are better
> Rob> provided for, and no longer have the need to abuse. I am very
> happy Rob> for you, and for the rest of the world who would read
> this list.
> To discredit this post, as well as your other claims, I'm actually
> going through the worst period in my life, exceeding my criminal
> arrest and conviction in 1995, which I had hoped would be the
> "forever lowest times". These past 18 months put that as a mere
> bump. If you've followed my blogs and tweets, you'd know the main
> Please leave your armchair psychology at home.
I sincerely hoped you had come on better times, and it is upsetting to
know that I can still not trust you to behave well. I will not research
you: if you wish us to know you situation then please retell it here.
> You may not like that I don't pull punches with others, probably
> because you're unwilling to be that direct. You'd rather be liked
> than to have an effect on others. I'm not that. I don't care if
> people like me, if what I do will eventually change behavior for
> others. I'm about the world, not about me. I want to leave this
> world a better place.
On the contrary, I believe you are better able to say things that need
saying than I am. My complaint is very different: that you used to find
all fault possible and magnify it to no one's benefit.
> People come online to learn Perl.
Yes! But you have succumbed to Germanic syntax where asentence needsonly
spaces tomakesense. It is 'on line'.
> If they write code that sucks, that's not the way Perl should be
> coded. I'll let them know straight out.
Yes, but you seem unable to keep to the defence that is widely
published, that you criticize not the man but the code. You used to
assassinate characters all the time while claiming otherwise.
> There's too much bad Perl being coded out there. I know... clients
> hire me to sort through the muck, and pay me a decent wage to do
> that. So if anything, I'm being counterproductive, because my goal
> is that I become no longer needed. :)
Randal, I have the same problem with all products. Let's say greetings
cards. Why on earth do stores sell such distasteful stuff? There seems
no reason why it shouldn't all be good, or at least acceptable. But I
know that, if I was to complain, there would always be average and poor
examples of the art. Be real and allow people who are as learned as you
Your profession is an art. You are gifted with the ability to write
software well, and it is unusual. Don't expect the rest of the world to
be as able.
> If someone comes here looking for a compliment for bad code simply
> because they've made an attempt, they're confused about what it
> takes to become a programmer.
People come here looking for help, knowing that what thay have achieved
so far is wrong somehow - at least it doesn't work and they don't know
what to do next. The last thing they need is for Randal to come over all
clever on them, make them out as idiots and imply that they should have
been coding from birth.
> In classroom labs, I use a much more Socratic method, because I have
> the privilege of multiple interactions. When asked a question, I
> generally respond with "well, how is that part of it going to work?"
> or "what did I say about X yesterday?", and get to repeat that until
> the correct observation is [made]. But that requires far more
> interaction than a mailing list can provide.
I can see that in the irony of the way you post. What happens when the
Socratic method has destroyed all hypotheses?
I believe that we need new ideas, and anything should be considered
until it must be pegged as impossible. That means we should express our
misgivings at every step, but know that we may be wrong in our
anticipation of failure.
Software is a mathematics that is about expressing function. So far it
is tied both to the humanistics that allows us to /understand/ what we
have written, and the electronics that /implements/ what we have written.
> I generally only get one shot here to fix the problem, so I go
> straight for the fix.
... yet you fix nothing. Nowhere is your prescription adopted.
> And *that's* how I'm different in a live situation, and get hired and
> rehired to teach.
Go back and see how your methods have been adopted. You are booked
because you are famous, and famous for all the wrong things. You are a
celebrity because you are different and, as usual, you are interesting
to listen to but of no practical use.
Again, I have no doubt of your skill with Perl. Nor that with
self-publicism. But I have come across many who have contributed more to
the Perl community that yourself, and am sure that you are lauded only
because you are loud.
I am sincerely sorry that your personal situation is so severe. Things
aren't so great for myself, and I am grateful to be able to post to this
list and receive greater understanding from each post.