in reply to (OT) Re^2: Returning undef: The point I would like Damian to reconsider
in thread Returning undef: The point I would like Damian to reconsider
I disagree about your comments on the title of PBP.
...
the benefits of its existence far outweigh the negatives (including the name).
Don't you see a contradiction here? So far you have defended the book, and I agree. You did not, though, explain why you disagree with me saying the title is bad - you just say it doesn't matter.
Well, for me, it matters.
But really, given the choice between PBP and an in-house standard cobbled together by said incompetent management which would you prefer!?What choice is that? Given the choice between a burger from <insert-junk-food-company-here> and your own fried shoe soles without salad and no onion, what would you prefer?
I would see this most excellent book from Damian Comway as a style guide or vade mecum to gain perl insight and develop a good inhouse coding standard, rather than having the book as a whole imposed as such, without reading it, and merely because of its title.
Which means: if anybody, including the PHB, after reading it gets enlightened and shouts "hey, these are really jolly well best perl practices!" and goes to introduce a subset or all as standard, that's perfectly fine.
It is not ok if someone comes and says "here, have Perl Best Practices. It's standard now." - "Why?" - "Because they are. Can't read the title?"
--shmem
_($_=" "x(1<<5)."?\n".q·/)Oo. G°\ /
/\_¯/(q /
---------------------------- \__(m.====·.(_("always off the crowd"))."·
");sub _{s./.($e="'Itrs `mnsgdq Gdbj O`qkdq")=~y/"-y/#-z/;$e.e && print}
|
---|
Replies are listed 'Best First'. | |
---|---|
Re^4: Returning undef: The point I would like Damian to reconsider
by Argel (Prior) on Jun 25, 2007 at 23:50 UTC |