Note: None of what follows applies to the original poster who started this thread. This is merely my following up on a thought that Aighearach sparked.

Aighearach wrote:

I just want to add my two cents and point out that the anti-.* attitude here theatens to install voodoo programming ideas in newcomers...

I have to confess that I'm rather ambivalent about this. I'm starting to get to the point where I don't even want to bother to point out good programming practices. Obviously, simply saying "don't use dot star" or "you must use strict" is not sufficient. premchai21 did provide a link to back up what was said, but I'm discovering more and more that people don't give a fig about how to program well.

That raises an interesting question: do we just answer questions for people, or do we take the trouble to care about the quality of answers? Dominus, if I understood him correctly, seems to argue for the just answer the question camp (in a reply to a review that I wrote about Perl and CGI for the World Wide Web). Specifically, he wrote:

I've heard plenty of arguments that you have to learn these style rules right from the beginning, apparently from people who think that if you once turn down the Path of Darkness your Soul is Lost Forevermore, and I think it's bullshit.

I differ on this. Have you ever studied chess with an expert? Or the martial arts, tennis, or anything require great skill? One of the most common complaints from experts in various fields is that they are sick and tired of trying to get people to "unlearn" bad habits. Quite often, these people are a lost cause. Teach them right from the beginning and you don't have to fight that fight.

That being said, so what? I, for one, am getting discouraged at giving answers and being told that I'm over the top (which I may very well be). I constantly see newbies telling more experienced people that they don't want to use strict. They don't need to use warnings. <sarcasm>They know exactly what they are doing but won't we please, please point out the one little bug in their program and then they'll ignore the other advice because they're clearly good enough to do without it anyway.</sarcasm>

If you check out my posts, you'll notice that I haven't been posting as much lately. That's due, in large part, because of this issue. I'm still showing up and reading the threads because I want (need) to continue to improve my Perl. Plus, I have a lot of friends that I've met here that I want to keep in touch with, but I'm getting burnt out on helping people who don't want to be helped.

I suppose I'm probably just in a funk right now and I'll snap out of it.

Cheers,
Ovid

Vote for paco!

Join the Perlmonks Setiathome Group or just click on the the link and check out our stats.

In reply to (Ovid) Re(3): A question of efficiency by Ovid
in thread A question of efficiency by c

Title:
Use:  <p> text here (a paragraph) </p>
and:  <code> code here </code>
to format your post, it's "PerlMonks-approved HTML":


  • Posts are HTML formatted. Put <p> </p> tags around your paragraphs. Put <code> </code> tags around your code and data!
  • Titles consisting of a single word are discouraged, and in most cases are disallowed outright.
  • Read Where should I post X? if you're not absolutely sure you're posting in the right place.
  • Please read these before you post! —
  • Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags:
    a, abbr, b, big, blockquote, br, caption, center, col, colgroup, dd, del, details, div, dl, dt, em, font, h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, hr, i, ins, li, ol, p, pre, readmore, small, span, spoiler, strike, strong, sub, summary, sup, table, tbody, td, tfoot, th, thead, tr, tt, u, ul, wbr
  • You may need to use entities for some characters, as follows. (Exception: Within code tags, you can put the characters literally.)
            For:     Use:
    & &amp;
    < &lt;
    > &gt;
    [ &#91;
    ] &#93;
  • Link using PerlMonks shortcuts! What shortcuts can I use for linking?
  • See Writeup Formatting Tips and other pages linked from there for more info.