Front page | perl.beginners |
Postings from August 2009
Re: A side note
From: Raymond Wan
August 19, 2009 02:07
Re: A side note
Message ID: 4A8BC0B6.email@example.com
Uri Guttman wrote:
>>>>>> "RW" == Raymond Wan <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> RW> And what if A tries B's code, fails and asks again and B continues
> RW> replying? Ok, A didn't get the "best answer" immediately; but
> RW> isn't it a bad idea to stop such discussion? And sure, a few
> RW> mails later, B gives up and someone else steps in. Is that a bad
> RW> thing? C can also do some "lurking" form time-to-time, right?
> RW> (NB: I have little sympathy for people who ask a question and say
> RW> "I have my homework due tomorrow and need the best answer now."
> RW> :-) )
> all subjective. this example started when someone posted poor code for a
> solution and he did ask for review of it. it would have been better if
> he had stated this was his newbie attempt and he was just looking for
> review of it, and not offering it to the OP as an answer.
Well, if we're going to have a "battle of the definition of 'subjective'" :-),
then likewise, what you said here when you said "it would have been
better..." -- is just as subjective. (One that others might share with you, but
by no means everyone... Hence, it's subjective.)
While Ian did not seek a review of his code, admitting that the solution was not
from an expert seems [to me :-) ] to satisfy the "not offering it as an answer"
requirement. Surely, if we don't have to tag an "In my opinion," to all of
our subjective postings, then we could relax a bit and interpret the two
statements of being near equal?
Ironically, if Ian wasn't up-front and admitted he wasn't an expert, you
probably wouldn't have taken an issue with it and just accepted him as being
incorrect. So, "honesty doesn't pay"? ;-)