You folks are spending a lot of time/energy going 'round and 'round about what exactly this new section would be named, but you don't seem to have grokked the faqlet "I think there should be a new Section..."
Please go do that first.
I reckon we are the only monastery ever to have a dungeon stuffed with 16 ,000 zombies.
| [reply] |
I've "grokked it"; I just completely disagree with it. And so do a lot of other people here.
I understand that this place is "not a democracy" (though why its not is another leading question), but surely the weight of numbers of the current, regular participants should count for something?
And a final thought for you:
Perhaps, if this place was (slightly) less proscribed and introverted; more open to Monk's wider, and evolving programming roles, interests and requirements; more of the once very active, now sorely missed, old guard might still be around; and the participation rate here wouldn't be falling year on year.
With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
| [reply] |
Ok, without getting into a spitting contest about who misunderstands what, let me try to boil this down:
Sections are not topical.
Sections are not topical (with the exception of PMD). They have never been topical. And the trend over the years, which reflects and reinforces this fact, is for sections to be removed (deprecated/disabled) rather than created. Look at the existing sections: SoPW, Meditations, CUFP (which is what Snippets and Catacombs were deprecated to), Obfu, Poetry, Tutorials, Categorized Q&A, and News. How are any of these topical? They're not. So introducing a new section based on topicality (even if it's "O.T.") breaks the schema.
I reckon we are the only monastery ever to have a dungeon stuffed with 16 ,000 zombies.
| [reply] |
Mh...
I take it from your replies that sections are not topical. Granted.
But I'm surprised by your harsh reaction.
All I meant was that opening the Perl community and perlmonks to integrate JS might be a good strategic move.
And I doubt this was discussed before, please point me to that discussion otherwise. The link you provided doesn't help here.
And even if it was discussed before, it's not necessarily up to date cause the landscape for dynamic languages changed considerably in the last years.
| [reply] |
opening the Perl community and perlmonks to integrate JS
That's not even O.T.
| [reply] |
