Your arrogance is stifling...For instance you posted:Bonus Critique
Perl's zero-based numbering scheme
The numbering of array indexes and other things in Perl start at 0. This is dumb.
That's the tone Perl::Improved was meant to have. I said I'll be critiquing EVERY function. Do you really think I could find significant problems with EVERY function and that I could give a good enough argument to support fixing all of them? I don't even know what some (maybe most) of the functions do!
Then let's take a look at the Let's Bash O'Reilly node that won you worst node of the year honors. I'm not talking about the original node, specifically, but how many Re: nodes did you write after it? So many that I stopped counting...
I wrote only 11 Re: nodes out of the 78, and people have said I explained myself better in them and only the top post gave them problems, but I'm not surprised about how you feel because I know plenty of people downvoted the Re: posts too. I'm really trying to give people the benefit of the doubt by implying that people really think I make a bad argument or that I'm rude when they downvote me. I could relate to how difficult being optimistic could be.
In reply to Re: Wassercrats::Improved, Part Deaux
by Wassercrats
in thread Perl::Improved Volume 0, Number 0
by Wassercrats
For: | Use: | ||
& | & | ||
< | < | ||
> | > | ||
[ | [ | ||
] | ] |