My initial reaction was, What kind of asshole tries to tell people what they should think? My second reaction was, Geez, this is a first-class idiot who completely fails to grasp why Dominus has been so influential on the Perl community. My third reaction was to guess that you reacted so badly to the article because you (correctly) suspect that you're exactly the kind of person that Dominus is criticizing.

For your edification, the value that Dominus offers for the Perl community is his exposure to many ideas from the many different language communities that he has been, and remains, a part of. Coupled with his abilities at clearly presenting complex material, he has exposed many Perl programmers to critical ideas that they would otherwise not have encountered in the Perl world.

Yes, he is a Perl programmer. But he is not just a Perl programmer. Nor does he think of himself as a Perl programmer. And the fact that he isn't just a Perl programmer, and doesn't just think of himself that way makes him a better programmer (both in Perl and out). And has made many others better as well!

My initial reaction is that you are a world class idiot. Don't ask for apology, as you will not get one.

You obviously disagree with me, but that does not change one thing, and you are still an idiot. For your own interest, please find your right position in this forum, don't overestimate.

Jeez, "muddled" and "illogical".

And I was gunning for "thoughtful" or "inquisitive."

There was one legitimate question in your article, which I answered. Otherwise, it was not inquisitive at all.

Hope this helps; better luck next time.

If you truly want to be "inquisitive", you need to ask questions. That is what "inquisitive" means.

No, I think InfiniteSilence was going for "inquisitive", as in "Inquisition". You know, chain you to a rack and guide you to an auto de fe regarding The True Perl Faith.

Sigh. FWIW, I've long held the opinion that language proselytization is pointless. (How long? Since I was mature enough to think rather than reacting viscerally.)

I find it interesting that you're rather insistently labeled by the zealots in this discussion as a "Perl programmer", which is a label you seem to strenuously avoid. An earlier commentator compared your position to a framing carpenter being peristently tagged as a "hammer wielder". It called to my mind the ancient adage, "When all you have is a hammer everything begins to look like a nail."

your home page, your book, and venerable Google (when you search on your name) have Perl prominently listed

Again, you're entirely missing the point. Let me spell it out for you: Perl is a tool, not an occupation. It may be his favorite tool, one he is very well known for using, and the one he uses far more often than any others. But it's still just a tool.

Perl is a tool, not an occupation.

Nobody claimed anybody was a Perl, did they?

A sculptor who is known for working with a chainsaw is a chainsaw sculptor. Not a chainsaw. Not merely a sculptor. He may think of himself as a no-particular-tool sculptor, may be familiar with and even productive with other methods, but it's perfectly valid to refer to him as a chainsaw sculptor.

---

Caution: Contents may have been coded under pressure.

He may think of himself as a no-particular-tool sculptor, may be familiar with and even productive with other methods, but it's perfectly valid to refer to him as a chainsaw sculptor.

Sure, but we're not talking about someone just referring to him as a Perl Programmer. We're talking about someone repeatedly trying to prove that he is a Perl Programmer, despite his self description of not being such. I think this is an entirely different thing, and deserves to be pointed out and rebuked.