|
Re: a proposal for a new section on PerlMonks
by halley (Prior) on Sep 28, 2005 at 17:48 UTC
|
Downvoted: any proposal to add a new section for some vague pet concept.
As for your vague pet concept in particular, what makes a WTF writeup versus something you could discuss in Obfuscation? As long as you say something along the lines of "my cow-orker wrote this; let's all giggle at its stench of incoherency," it would be perfectly suitable.
--
[ e d @ h a l l e y . c c ]
| [reply]
[d/l] |
Re: a proposal for a new section on PerlMonks for a wtf section
by ww (Archbishop) on Sep 28, 2005 at 17:54 UTC
|
On the one hand, bogo_sort algorithm examples with REALLY CLEAR and ACCURATE reply nodes could have a lot of value...
...but on the other, I'm concerned that a wtf section could be overpopulated with nodes mis-categorized by those (like me) with insufficient CS expertise to correctly ID a "weird, inappropriate" algorithm... or to distinguish between "strange code" and that that's been golfed; represents a style with which the reader is unfamiliar, etc.
And on the (customary) third hand, if implemented, I would suggest every node granted the honor of wtf membership should display with a very ^H^H^H^H^H VERY prominent identification, lest it be mistaken for "good" code or algorithm... and that its progeny be similarly rendered with a note (lest it be unclear, in some cases) that the node is response to perceived example of wtf | [reply] |
Re: a proposal for a new section on PerlMonks
by sauoq (Abbot) on Sep 28, 2005 at 18:42 UTC
|
Anyway? Any comments?
It seems every day there is another suggestion for another section. We have plenty of sections. We don't need one for joke or just-plain-ridiculous algorithms any more than we need one for regex questions or advocacy.
-sauoq
"My two cents aren't worth a dime.";
| [reply] |
Re: a proposal for a new section on PerlMonks
by herveus (Prior) on Sep 28, 2005 at 22:04 UTC
|
| [reply] |
Re: a proposal for a new section on PerlMonks
by spiritway (Vicar) on Sep 28, 2005 at 21:02 UTC
|
I think adding a section would be overkill, but I like the idea of finding bogo-sort class code. There's a kind of perverse enjoyment of seeing really bizarre code. The problem, of course, is that my strange code is innovative, unique, clever; their strange code is just bizarre and dumb. Seems we might wind up with some ruffled feathers and flaming, if we had a section like that.
| [reply] |
|
|
The problem, of course, is that my strange code is innovative, unique, clever; their strange code is just bizarre and dumb.
Indeed the code that I submitted for this snippet is conceptually the same I had posted to news:comp.lang.perl.misc earlier in this article (available from Google Groups here), but the latter had "somewhat" less orthodox flow control structures; and indeed IIRC someone misunderstood it. Needless to say I thought this choice was very cool, back then...
| [reply] |
Re: a proposal for a new section on PerlMonks
by Mutant (Priest) on Sep 29, 2005 at 09:37 UTC
|
I agree with others - I don't think this warrants a new section. If you're replying to a SOPW and want to give a 'wtf' type answer (like the one you've linked to), then it should stay in SOPW as a child of that node.
If you want to give examples of WTF type code (either your own, or others), then post in meditations (it's been done before). | [reply] |
Re: a proposal for a new section on PerlMonks
by jdporter (Paladin) on Jun 14, 2006 at 19:51 UTC
|
| [reply] |