I happened to have them both open in different tabs at the same time and found the irony intriguing. In one thread, you're supposed to look upon invective and hyperbole with distaste and distrust, and in the other, using Perl::Critic will make you go blind.
| [reply] |
Is that really ironic?
- In one, I am the seller. Of an opinion, about the way Perl::Critic tends to be used..
The program & module suite are sophisticated code, well-implemented. But they are frequently abused because of the over-zealous defaults.
Newbies and managers rarely read the small print, and if they do, often do not understand the reasoning sufficiently to make their own choices. So they go with the defaults, and the damage is done.
- In the other, I am speaking as proxy for the buyer. Simply counseling caveat emptor.
By all means, apply my buyer's guidelines to that which I sell. Indeed, I expect it of you.
So applied, the former reduces to: "Do not allow perlcritic to set standards. It is a configurable tool that allows you to police your standards."
And was a reaction to the statement:
It looks like Module::Starter produces a template that falls far short of perlcritic standards,
Paraphrase: Perlcritic doesn't have "standards", unless you "blindly" accept its defaults. Don't!
You see, you do not have to be blind, or go blind, to act blindly.
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
| [reply] |
| [reply] |
