Re^3: How I started reading Perl's (builtin) documentation.

I don't demand anything, except honesty. I do retain the right to criticise people, volunteers or otherwise, who don't follow through on their promises. Lies aren't acceptable to many people.

People who say they're going to do something, and then don't do it, disappoint others. Obviously the people who planned to address problems and then chose not to disappointed a lot of people, self included.

People coming into the Perl community should know that history, and know that coding with perl isn't all the sunshine and roses that it's portrayed to be by it's breathless enthusisasts. They shouldn't believe promises that the documentation will be cleaned up "real soon now", because that's been false for a long time now. Those promises are still in the documentation; and they're still lies.

There are issues for and against perl, and in this thread, perl's documentation was being presented as a strength. I felt it was only right to point out the weaknesses, as well; and to prevent others from being mislead by false promises, like I was in thhe past.

Perl can do good work. It could be better if it were better documented. People in the Perl community complain that they want more supporters and perl enthusiasts, and write long threads wondering how to attract people, but they don't want to do the basics, like document the language cleanly, simply and concisely. Now, I'll make a prediction: your response (if you respond at all) is going to be even less relevant and coherent than your original rant. This is Ad hominem, antagonistic, and completely uncalled for! I'm not "shooting" at you; I'm providing a valid criticism of an otherwise useful language, based upon real world experience. So go ahead, give me your best shot, but I'm not going to be surprised. Nor open minded... it seems. I'm only replying for the benefit of those who might be misled by all the Perl cheerleading, not for your empty minded, selfish complaints. As for you, get lost. No one need empty minded boosterism.

Comment on Re^3: How I started reading Perl's (builtin) documentation.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: How I started reading Perl's (builtin) documentation. by demerphq (Chancellor) on Oct 09, 2005 at 16:25 UTC
Now, I'll make a prediction: your response (if you respond at all) is going to be even less relevant and coherent than your original rant. This is Ad hominem, antagonistic, and completely uncalled for! I'm not "shooting" at you; I'm providing a valid criticism of an otherwise useful language, based upon real world experience. This is one of the drawbacks of using the AM account for posting. People are likely to assume you are someone other than who you are and also to assume that you will behave other than you would normally do so. Post under a real account and people are far more likely to give you the benefit of the doubt. Its only human nature... --- $world=~s/war/peace/g	[reply]
Re^5: How I started reading Perl's (builtin) documentation. by Anonymous Monk on Oct 11, 2005 at 20:53 UTC
This is one of the drawbacks of using the AM account for posting. People are likely to assume you are someone other than who you are and also to assume that you will behave other than you would normally do so. That seems like quite an unfair prejudice to me. :-( Why make such assumptions at all? Post under a real account and people are far more likely to give you the benefit of the doubt. Its only human nature... I think that's just "begging the question". Clearly, I don't consider distaste for anonymous postings to be "only human nature", because it's not in my nature, and I consider myself human. :-) I've always been a bit bewildered by the hostility that some people display to anonymous posts. I was always taught that educated debate focused on ideas, not on people. Unfortunately, a lot of people seem to disagree. :-( What puzzles me even more is that those who seem to object to "anonymous" posting are typically people who themselves post under some anonymous pseudonym, rather than their own real world identity. Am I the only one who senses some measure of hypocrisy there? -- AC	[reply]
Re^6: How I started reading Perl's (builtin) documentation. by demerphq (Chancellor) on Oct 11, 2005 at 21:33 UTC
Clearly, I don't consider distaste for anonymous postings to be "only human nature", because it's not in my* nature, and I consider myself human.* I didnt say distate. I dont think anonymous posting is distasteful, I just think its human nature to assume that one anonymous poster is the same as another, particularly when their writing style is similar. And I would say that observing patterns and making predicitions based on them is human nature. Since you have dropped the primary basis by which we can distinguish you from others with a similar posting style its hardly surprising that people might make assumptions that you are the same author of some other post. What puzzles me even more is that those who seem to object to "anonymous" posting are typically people who themselves post under some anonymous pseudonym, rather than their own real world identity. I think the difference is that the pseudonym is associated to one person. You can go through all of my posts and form an opinion of me and what I say based on those writings. I on the other hand have to take every post you have made as anonymonk stand alone. I cant use any other post to form an opinion of your comments. For instance if I am asking a question then presumably I dont know the answer, so it becomes difficult to distinguish between good answers and bad. If someone answers that I have seen answer correctly something I did know I have a certain basis to assume that their answer in this new area is likely to be right. Of course it may be wrong, in which case my opinion of their answers is likely to reduce. Over time it becomes fairly clear who knows what they are talking about, or who is a good person to speak to about certain issues. But the anonymonk he posts as a virgin every time. When he posts I need to look for more subtle clues in his posting to determine whether he is worth listening to. And IMO this makes it all the more likely that spurious opinions about whether two AM posts were by the same person are to arise. So, no, i dont think it hypocritical to have a psudonym and to make a point out of your posting as AM and expecting to be treated as a full user. I was always taught that educated debate focused on ideas, not on people. Unfortunately, a lot of people seem to disagree. I think if you think about this a bit youll see there is something wrong with this simplification. If you are interested in physics and some guy walks up to you and starts babbling about some crazy theory that is totally above your head you probably wont take the time to even find out if it makes sense, but if the same guy is standing at the front for your lecture hall and gives the same speech you probably will have a totally different opinion. Whether its right or wrong, its life in my opinion. There are just so many ideas out there, we use our knowledge of a person to help filter out the quality from the crap. When you go totally anonymous, you might as well be anyone, saying anything. Maybe even someone malicious saying something that looks right but is in fact deeply wrong. You cant do that twice using the same account name. :-) --- $world=~s/war/peace/g	[reply]
Re^6: How I started reading Perl's (builtin) documentation. by Roy Johnson (Monsignor) on Oct 11, 2005 at 21:04 UTC
What puzzles me even more is that those who seem to object to "anonymous" posting are typically people who themselves post under some anonymous pseudonym, rather than their own real world identity. Their identity here is their identity here. They have a reputation at stake every time they post. Anonymonk does not. Caution: Contents may have been coded under pressure.	[reply]
A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.