Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Do you know where your variables are?
 
PerlMonks  

Re: Perl Monks += TMTOWTDI (fallibility)

by Abigail-II (Bishop)
on Apr 16, 2003 at 12:02 UTC ( [id://250858]=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^3: Perl Monks += TMTOWTDI (fallibility)
in thread Perl Monks += TMTOWTDI

Actually, maybe he is. I think we should be very careful to put people on pedestals like this. Damian, merlyn, myself, and others you didn't mention might sometimes have ideas noone sane would ever have, inside the sugary layer with chemical flavours are regular coders. If would take some code of Damian, and post it here for review, without telling it was from Damian, it would be shredded to pieces, if only because it doesn't use strict or warnings. Merlyn probably has posted more articles containing buggy code on Usenet than the average monk has read articles. As for myself, well, my code is of course perfect, it's just taking the rest of you a long time to agree.

Never assume that because it's written by person $X, it has to be good. Unless $X eq "Knuth" and $X is willing to pay money for each mistake found.

  • Comment on Re: Perl Monks += TMTOWTDI (fallibility)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Perl Monks += TMTOWTDI (fallibility)
by Anonymous Monk on Apr 16, 2003 at 12:33 UTC

    Wise words indeed. I've often wondered about the need to elevate certain individuals in a community to god-like status. This, of course, transcends Perl (and programming languages, and software, and so on) but still, more often than not, seems detrimental. I don't think it really provides an incentive to most programmers, but then again I never paid attention in psychology ;)

    Also, as you touched on, near-fanatical devotions to certain paradigms doesn't help much either. Any code that doesn't conform to these specifications is instantly looked down upon. It's also the first thing that's looked for as a problem in posted code, often causing the reviewer to ignore actual errors and give advice like "add use strict, then repost" which doesn't really help anything.

    So basically "me too" to the parent post :)

      I might be inclined to post that on occasion, when the code shown is messy and the mistake not obvious. So even making an absolute out of "add use strict, then repost posts are useless" is (mostly *g*) useless.

      Makeshifts last the longest.

Re^5: Perl Monks += TMTOWTDI (fallibility)
by Aristotle (Chancellor) on Apr 16, 2003 at 13:09 UTC

    Yes, maybe he is. Did I say otherwise? I said the question is if so.

    That TheDamian's code would get shredded for not using strict alone is a pointless fact. I doubt a lot of people would be able to fully grok the stuff he does, let alone recreate it under strictures.

    It's not a matter of whether code written by $X is good or bad; it's a matter of the probability of $X writing good code in relation to the probably of oneself writing good code.

    Makeshifts last the longest.

      it's a matter of the probability of $X writing good code in relation to the probably of oneself writing good code.

      True, however, if you can't understand the code, should you really be using it? How maintainable is the code if only Damian knows what it's doing? What's to prevent Damian from taking advantage of his vastly superior knowledge and inserting code that will turn my processor into a nuclear weapon and holding the world hostage until they pay him the sum of 1 Million Dollars! I mean, look at his picture, he's evil. EEEVIL.

        if you can't understand the code, should you really be using it?

        So you have read, understood and grokked the entire source for perl? :) That of your OS? Its device drivers?

        . o O ( What's that dead horse doing in here? )

        Makeshifts last the longest.

Re: Re: Perl Monks += TMTOWTDI (fallibility)
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Apr 16, 2003 at 13:40 UTC

    Hear, hear.


    Examine what is said, not who speaks.
    1) When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
    2) The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible
    3) Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
    Arthur C. Clarke.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Domain Nodelet?
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://250858]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this?Last hourOther CB clients
Other Users?
Others making s'mores by the fire in the courtyard of the Monastery: (1)
As of 2024-04-25 02:07 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    No recent polls found