Re^5: [JavaScript]

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.

Cheers Rolf
_{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language and ☆☆☆☆ :)

Je suis Charlie!}

Comment on Re^5: [JavaScript]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^6: [OT] How about an Off Topic Section? by jdporter (Paladin) on Jun 07, 2015 at 21:30 UTC
opening the Perl community and perlmonks to integrate JS That's not even O.T.	[reply]
Re^7: [OT] How about an Off Topic Section? by LanX (Saint) on Jun 07, 2015 at 22:20 UTC
So it wasn't discussed before! I'm accepting your apologies. Cheers Rolf _{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language and ☆☆☆☆ :) Je suis Charlie!}	[reply]
Re^8: [OT] How about an Off Topic Section? by jdporter (Paladin) on Jun 08, 2015 at 13:20 UTC
I'm happy for you to accept my apologies, even if I did not intend to tender them. :-) I was not responding to the question of whether Topic X (and I'm not even sure what that is) has been discussed before. My point was that "Perl + X" isn't off topic for PerlMonks, or at least seems very unlikely to be, so there's no point in calling it "O.T.", and -- more to the point -- doesn't have any bearing on the question of whether we should have an O.T. section, since it wouldn't go in there anyway. Now, if someone has a purely JS question, without nexus to Perl, that would be O.T. Have I misunderstood something? I reckon we are the only monastery ever to have a dungeon stuffed with 16,000 zombies.	[reply]