Re^2: PM Guide to editing nodes.

I’m on the fence about this…

I have given a lot of advice here I would not give today. I would not recommend Class::DBI, Path::Class, IO::All, Starman, or quite a few other things I have before. This is one of the reasons I find StackOverlfow generally odious in spite of its many otherwise merits; Vote to close: questions are answered and never shall they be revisited.

Some advice I’ve given was good advice at one point but better exists now. Some advice I’ve given was because I didn’t know any better and no one realized or knew the need to step up to show better, so some of it stands as potentially authoritative in some degree.

There are algorithmic and design discussions here that will be valid for years or decades. Many of the code answers are stale in a year and it’s a great strength of this site that so many monks are willing to entertain revisiting and refining even basic questions.

~~And as far as edits: U WOT M8?!~~ There is also nothing wrong with gracious edits that accept responsibility for poorly chosen words, technical or otherwise.

Comment on Re^2: PM Guide to editing nodes.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: PM Guide to editing nodes. by chacham (Prior) on Mar 11, 2015 at 13:11 UTC
I have given a lot of advice here I would not give today. The other case is just as bad. That is, to go back and change the old posts. History is doomed to repeat itself; if you don't leave the posts there, someone else will "discover" the trick and give out the "new advice." Instead, i would reply to the old post, pointing to what has been learnt. Knowing what used to be thought of as good, and what was learnt over time is best for all. Well, except for people who look so quickly they don't read the rest of the thread. For them, an "override" post of some sort would be better. Strike-through does do that, but doesn't usually look that great and a quick reader may skip the message entirely. There are ways to finagle this idea, but posting a reply seems to be what most people do.	[reply]
Re^4: PM Guide to editing nodes. by Your Mother (Archbishop) on Mar 11, 2015 at 15:29 UTC
Well, I have actually fixed a couple in recent weeks but generally what you say is nonsense. You go back and give me edit notes on my 2,000+ nodes and I’ll gladly address anything particularly egregious that you find. This place is a journal of Perl more than a wiki. As I said, this broken attitude of time is a fixed point in relation to technical knowledge is part of why I find SO generally repugnant. If someone isn’t clever enough to realize that advice from 2005 is all but guaranteed to be out of date in the tech world, he has no business working in the tech world. If someone doesn’t think advice from two years ago might possibly be dated, he will lose jobs to those who are more cautious, ambitious, and curious.	[reply]
Re^5: PM Guide to editing nodes. by chacham (Prior) on Mar 11, 2015 at 15:52 UTC
Um, i think we missed each other point(s) here. I was commenting on "updating" earlier posts. If someone isn’t clever enough to realize that advice from 2005 is all but guaranteed to be out of date in the tech world I do not think that is as plain as you put it here. Much of the old information is as valid now as it was then. But yes, looking at the old while ignoring the more current, would be an exercise in silliness.	[reply]
Re^6: PM Guide to editing nodes. by Your Mother (Archbishop) on Mar 11, 2015 at 15:54 UTC


"be consistent"
	PerlMonks