I think pointing them at a CPAN module is analogous to giving them a lure.

-sauoq
"My two cents aren't worth a dime.";

As for giving code vs. pointing to a module, pointing to a CPAN module is a quick, easy answer that encourages reuse. But module use may retard development of coding skills that will be needed when there is no module around to do what you need. Just like calculus, learn how to do it yourself first, then you can consult the integral tables.

I love bad analogies. That's why I make so many of my own. :)

But module use may retard development of coding skills that will be needed when there is no module around to do what you need.

Discouraging module use for the sake of "learning how to do it myself!" may retard development of coding skills that will be needed when you have to do something right. Just like calculus, use a teacher — or, at least, a really good book — to learn how to do it.

And is not the analogy of this site based on the monastic societies where the uninitiated would go to learn. So would it not be the duty of the monks to help the initiates?

So are not the monks supposed to be the teachers? Or are they just to point people towards their favourite bible, saying the camel is better than the lizard that the lion eats in the desert.

I am new here, but I appreciate the fish with my fishing lessons. Though I am still really learning to tie my lures.

Is pointing someone at CPAN, either generically or to a specific module, more like teaching them to fish, or giving them a fish?

What about providing a code solution to thier question.

Again, that depends on the question. Sometimes providing a code solution is like spoonfeeding the questioner. Sometimes, it's the only reasonable answer.

Abigail

It's like stocking the fishery, except for ACME, which is like chumming the waters.

Until the first time I downloaded and installed a module I assumed it would be over my head, especially as a beginner. Being pointed to CPAN once or twice motivated me to dig in and figure out what steps to take to install a module. And once I figured that out, I found myself able to go fishing anytime I was hungry.

I'm sure I would have gone fishing on my own sooner or later. But seeing people linking to modules on CPAN and recommending them as though there were no barrier whatsoever to entry to the use of said modules, I was tempted to try for myself, and succeeded.

You can give the same tidbit of information many different classes of people. One will cut-n-paste it, another will ignore it altogether, and someone else will open a book or two to see why the tidbit works. It's always my hope that any advice I give is received by the latter, though I'm sure there are plenty of times that it is received by the first two cases. No matter, I learn something every time I respond, and occasionally someone else does as well.

That's teaching them to fish.

Well, there is a level thing. Comparing with teaching a person how to search CPAN, this is a fish; But comparing with giving a person a piece of sample code as how to use that CPAN module, this is teaching them fishing. (One more: comparing with telling one that there is a CPAN.org, teaching a person how to use CPAN is giving him a fish ;-)

So the question really is what is the right level, or put it in this way, should you give one a raw fish? a marinated fish? or a cooked fish?

I think it is perfectly okay to point people to a particular CPAN module, as they still have a widely open space to learn, they have to read doc, have to dig into those methods, and figure out how to make it work for them.

There might be a couple of CPAN modules available for the same thing, as an experienced user, you must have a reason to pick this particular one, and that's what is really precious to newbies - your experience.

Sometime, some people are in a rush to have something done, and by pointing them to a module, you saved them.

Installing it for them, testing, it, running, not writing them an example but actually coding the interfaces for their code. That's giving them the fish.

You know you're in trouble when someone sends you reports on"problems with the code your wrote", and you see typos into the script output that they've sent you, clearly indicating that they're clueless as to even how to 'cut/copy/paste.'

If you hate extended analogies, click away now.

My own take on this, having read other peoples thoughts, is that a link to search.cpan.org is a little like pointing at the ocean and saying "There be fish there".

Pointing at a specific module on cpan, is like pointing to a particular grid reference on a map of the ocean and saying, "That's a really good place to catch mullet".

Posting a piece of code is like taking them to a particular pool or quay, handing them a pre-assembled and baited rod and line and telling them to "Dip the hook over there".

In the first case, they pretty much have to know what they want to eat, how to fish, and where to go in order that they might do so, to eat.

In the second case, you've told them they need mullet and where they can catch it, but the rest is down to them.

In the third case, you've pretty much given them a fish. However, you've also shown them one way to rig the equipment, bait the hook, and one place where using it will produce results. They eat immediately, and if they have the desire, they can repeat the exercise. Hopefully, they'll start out by copying, discover their own variations on rigging the equipment, try different baits, and eventually be ready to go find a specific point on the ocean by referral, or simply set out on the ocean and find their own breeds of fish, and places to capture them.

In the end, it's all about the desire and willingness to learn. Some people will be happy to return to the soup kitchen over and over and simply complain about the sameness of the menu. Others will get bored by the diet, intrigued by the possibilities and explore on their own.

For some people, their only interest in fishing is eating. For others, catching the fish is only the final step of an endlessly fascinating and time consuming hobby, and they will always end up putting the fish back. Standing still for hours, often in the pouring rain and for no final result is as important and (almost) as satisfying as catching the fish.

Some will become commercial fishermen, working on factory ships pulling huge nets and selling the product of their labours. There skills are more in the way to drive the boat, haul in the lines, understand the displays on the echo locators, and negotiate shrewd deals when selling their product.

Still others will earn a living by teaching their skills to others, hiring out boats and equipment by the hour or day. A few will take that further and produce TV programs on the subject. Some will write books. A few, a very few, will become master fishermen or competition anglers, paid just to attend events and fish for free using equipment supplied by their sponsors.

Whatever their level of interest, skill and dedication, I hope for their sakes that there is a FishMonks.com where all levels and types of fisher folk can meet, learn, teach and interact, because it's that aspect of PerlMonks, the variety of skills, drives and needs that make this place so compelling, and so much more interesting and entertaining than any other similar site or forum. Long may it be so.

I believe there are those who are going to learn to fish, and those who just aren't. It's a matter of being interested, really. Does withholding a fish from the hungry really force them to fish? I doubt it. In any case, this may be too broad a generality. Asking questions here could be thought of as either fishing or begging for fish. The difference is usually apparent, no?

One big trouble with CPAN is that there is so much stuff, and quite a few modules with overlapping capabilities. To choose among various possible solutions one must try them all out or ask somebody who has already done it. If the goal is to encourage people to use and learn Perl, isn't it better to avoid discouraging those people, even at the risk of making it too easy?

Unless Perl programming is one's main goal in life, one who is using Perl is probably really trying to do something else; Perl is a tool. If the questioner is going to explore the deeper meaning of Perl programming, he will do so because he is so motivated, not because he gets cryptic answers to his questions. At the moment he may not have the time.

It is often recommended that a good way to learn programming is by studying good examples of source code. Isn't a short example of good source code merely the reward for fishing in the right stream?

I think I agree with every sentiment and nuance of that:)

I drew my conclusions on this at Re: Is CPAN fish or fishing? (It's the ocean!), and I whilst the emphasis may vary a little, I think we are saying pretty much the same thing.

---

Examine what is said, not who speaks.
"Efficiency is intelligent laziness." -David Dunham
"Think for yourself!" - Abigail
Hooray!
Wanted!