develooper Front page | perl.beginners | Postings from August 2009

Re: A side note

Thread Previous | Thread Next
Raymond Wan
August 19, 2009 02:07
Re: A side note
Message ID:

Hi Uri,

Uri Guttman wrote:
>>>>>> "RW" == Raymond Wan <> 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"?  ;-)


Thread Previous | Thread Next Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at | Group listing | About