Computer Monks

I would love to see Perl Monks for everything under the sun. I personally don't see why this kind of community cannot be fostered with any programming language or technology. It may be, admittedly, probably more difficult than with Perl, but I'm sure at least 95% of our Brotherhood have extensive experience in another language, and Computer Science in general. I frequently come in and ask for OT advice in the CB and often get some good advice. Admittedly, there are some problems expanding to other language.

Most other languages aren't as well documented as Perl.
Other languages don't have the preexistnig culture that Perl has.
Other languages aren't as fun to code in as Perl.

The answer to me seems to be renaming the monastery Computer Monks (or whatever) and producing Sections of the Monastery for each Language/Concept that gets enough traffic. Then we subdivide the Language sections just like we do with Perl and such. Also, there is the General section where we keep Meditations and Discussion and such. People turn on the languages they are interested in and, as usual, the subsections they want as well.

To make it 5uP3r 1337, we give separate XP in separate sections, in keeping with the idea that XP = creadibility, so just because I'm a PerlHacker doean't mean anything when I start posting to the Prolog Section. Perhaps also different powers over different sections due to rank. C++ Saints can't even vote in HTML.

Some problems:

Too much traffic.
Some languages generate more newbies than others.
CB has to have separate channels for separate sections to avoid annoying commentary from the Assembly nuts.
Vroom no longer has time to sleep at night.
We turn into \..

I think traffic problems can be solved by turning off uninteresting sections. \. issues are already handled well by voting and NodeReaper. Everything's CB already has multiple channels, so perhaps the solution is there. Vroom doesn't need sleep. You can ignore sections you don't care about.

In short, I feel that by this method we can slowly expand PerlMonks until it takes over the world. At least, if we can find a way to make this place economically viable.

So, not to leap without looking, but, as a test, what does everyone think about adding a database board?

Update: Bad haX0r script corrected by Boldra and azatoth.

-Lexicon

Comment on Computer Monks

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Computer Monks by arhuman (Vicar) on Apr 10, 2001 at 16:03 UTC
That's an interesting point. I know several monks, who would like to find other community like that (Javamonks,prologmonks???) beccause thay just like other languages too or beccause they HAVE to code in other language at the office. I see several arguments, against this idea : Part of the spirit of the monastery is bind to the nature of Perl. <Flame bait> You just can't make obfuscation or poetry in Java </Flame bait> Some monks will probably don't like the monastery change to become Just another programming site (and until you convince me I'll be in this camp) It may make the monastery like slashdot : a lot of people but a lower info/noise ratio. Vroom has zillions of more important (IMHO) things to do for the monastery (setting up a Paypal account for example ;-) If I have some questions non related to perl I sometimes ask in the CB (and often get an answer...) I'm not against this kind of site, I am just against anything that could harm the monastery. And I don't see why it should be done here (instead of making another site) Please believe me when I say I'm not opposed to the changes, I just take care to not alter something that works well. "Only Bad Coders Badly Code In Perl" (OBC2IP)	[reply]
Re (tilly) 1: Computer Monks by tilly (Archbishop) on Apr 11, 2001 at 01:18 UTC
Alternate proposal. Have PerlMonks continue to develop the XML feeds, and let people who want to start sister sites. Then let the people who are working hard on statistics and chatter clients build the ability to merge feeds from 2 or more sister sites to get a view of whatever combination they want. Perhaps chromatic's Jellybean in there (as it matures). I am with arhuman in wanting this to remain PerlMonks. And given the way that I walk the site, playing games with navigation won't help me filter what I see any. I understand the desire for more languages. But I don't think that a naive leveraging and spreading out will do this site much good. Indeed my observations of online communities over the years lead me to predict that the more diffuse you make any particular community, the more of a problem you have with trolls, flaming, etc. So I like seeing a fairly tightly focussed remit. I think it will keep the community healthy for longer.	[reply]
Re: Re (tilly) 1: Computer Monks by Lexicon (Chaplain) on Apr 11, 2001 at 04:34 UTC
I had thought of separate sites, but it didn't strike me to bust out extra clients to tie them together, which is why I discarded it. Building a master site which customized your Monks experience would be pretty awesome, and ahem* an excellent addition to the Everything Engine. ;) The problem for now is proof of concept. Adding an extra section is relevant to PM and not nearly so difficult as setting up a new EveryBox with apropriate bandwidth. Although, if I had EveryDevel's blessing, I might be willing to do that when I return to the states. So it comes down to two things I suppose. Maintaining PM's user experience vs. Creating Monks user experience. I am as worried as you about the former, since Monks hasn't been tested or anything. But everyone seems interested. We should certainly consider it more. Of course, it comes back to PM being economically viable. There isn't as much incentive to do it if it's sucking a couple $$hundred$$ a month out of your bank account. -Lexicon	[reply]
Re: Computer Monks by Boldra (Deacon) on Apr 10, 2001 at 14:57 UTC
Another problem with expanding into other languages: On perlmonks, HTML knowledge is assumed. Web experience is also assumed. If one site tried to include PASCAL or BASIC programmers, these assumptions would have to be dropped.	[reply]
Re: Re: Computer Monks by Lexicon (Chaplain) on Apr 10, 2001 at 15:44 UTC
I dissagree. I don't believe familiarity with anything other than Perl (or even Perl itself in our newbies) is really assumed. I think that statistic about 90% of our content being CGI related is rediculous. Probably less than half of our Monks could use the Document Object Model competently. That's an offhand guess though, as everyone is free to define 'competent' as they please. ;-) Conversely, if the monestary were to accumulate one new section at a time, it would certainly pick up HTML before Basic. I imagine a potential order might be: Databases, Security, HTML, Python, Java, C/C++, etc... but really, who's to say? -Lexicon	[reply]
Re: Re: Re: Computer Monks by Boldra (Deacon) on Apr 10, 2001 at 19:09 UTC
Since three of the seven Monastary FAQ questions deal with HTML, you might say that if it's not assumed knowledge, it is at least very useful. I'm not talking about in-depth knowledge of HTML, but enough to format your posts. As further evidence for my point that perlmonks wouldn't work for other languages, I like to suggest that those of us who aren't using perl for HTML tasks are probably using it for system administration. Those users therefore have the same understanding of how to manage a community of users as a webmaster does. I'd also like to bring up this contentious point: would you use perlmonks if it wasn't written in perl? Would a python, java or PHP developer want to use a website that was written in perl? (Naturally a SQL developer wouldn't mind, since perlmonks site uses mySQL too :) And finally, `Would you even read this sentence if I didn't know how to change the font tags??` The HTML savvy users have an advantage on this site.	[reply]