(Ovid) RE(2): Assessing Perl skill level in job interviews

le, I disagree. Why should I trust your Perl just because a previous employer is happy? If you own a gun and haven't shot yourself in the foot, it doesn't mean I should trust you with my gun.

Elizabeth Castro wrote "Perl and CGI for the World Wide Web". She clearly has Perl experience. Further, some of her previous employers may be happy with the work she has done (if they haven't been hacked yet). However, her actual Perl appears to be pitiful. It's poorly written and has tons of security holes. The same thing can be said of Matt from Matt's Script Archives. Having Perl experience and having good references (can't we all get good references if we list the right names?) doesn't mean we know Perl well enough to be trusted.

If an applicant simply walked out on me, I would rush over to hold the door for them. That says to me one of two things: bad attitude or bad programmer. I've hired too many people to simply trust them and their references to tell me the truth. I need to know for myself.

Cheers,
Ovid

Comment on (Ovid) RE(2): Assessing Perl skill level in job interviews

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: (Ovid) RE(2): Assessing Perl skill level in job interviews by Anonymous Monk on Aug 31, 2003 at 03:52 UTC
Elizabeth Castro wrote "Perl and CGI for the World Wide Web". She clearly has Perl experience. ... However, her actual Perl appears to be pitiful. Is this really necessary? I'll keep this in point form so it doesn't turn into a flame: There is a second edition out that most likely fixes 90+% of your complaints. Insulting an older edition of an author's book is like me making fun of a report you did in grade 2. The original book is accessible. It's an inexpensive, short, easy to read introduction to Perl. Insult its quality all you like, it got many people (including myself) interested in Perl. In my opinion that's far more important than explaining things like strict, warnings, and all the other frequent regurgitated complaints around here. As for security, you're looking in the wrong places. If someone who has only read a visual quickstart guide is placing code online for any type of serious organization, their problems already runs far deeper. Do not concern yourself with locking doors when you have no walls. I should also point out that your criticism of Matt Wright is also somewhat invalidated. He recently changed his site to support the NMS project and provide a secure alternative to his scripts. Perhaps you need to find some new scapegoats? If an applicant simply walked out on me, I would rush over to hold the door for them. That says to me one of two things: bad attitude or bad programmer. How about if they flat-out told you that based on your questions they weren't interested in working for your company? An interview is just as much about the employee judging the employer as it is vice versa.	[reply]
Re: (Ovid) RE(2): Assessing Perl skill level in job interviews by Anonymous Monk on Aug 31, 2003 at 03:58 UTC
Ha! I just read this entire thread thinking it was recently posted (due to a reply showing up in newest nodes), then looked at the last comment's date. Please feel free to ignore my reply :)	[reply]
Re: Re: (Ovid) RE(2): Assessing Perl skill level in job interviews by Ovid (Cardinal) on Aug 31, 2003 at 18:29 UTC
Regardless of whether or not your reply was timely, there's still a point one can take issue with: my tone was awful. While I certainly had problems with Castro's first book or Wright's scripts, I didn't need to say it in such a rude manner. Cheers, Ovid New address of my CGI Course.	[reply]


Perl Monk, Perl Meditation
	PerlMonks