It pays to be a generalist, not a specialist,

You are a generalist in the sense that, you know nothing about anything, rather than are weak on something in particular.

You are -- at the risk of repeating myself from a loong time ago -- a charlatan; a fake; a fakir(as in mendicant; for attention); a wastrel; a fraud; a con; an impostor; a shyster; a phony; a quack; a pretender; a cozener; in short, the epitomous snake-oil salesman.

The weird thing is you've been at this for 11 years (here; elsewhere for longer), and you've been known as such for almost as long; and yet, you still keep up the pretense.

Now, there are a few possibilities to explain your persistence:

  1. You are clever.

    It had to be mentioned as a possibility; but obviously not.

  2. You are stupid.

    Harder for me to discount; but there is some semblance of logic to some of what you write.

    What you write is (or more often: was) usually: vaguely, approximately, superficially; on topic: if you squint your eyes, suspend disbelief, and hark back to the prevailing winds of 30 years ago. Everything -- without exception -- that you proffer as wisdom; was cutting edge circa. 1985, and was rapidly and comprehensively discounted in the years -- <5 in most cases -- since. You apparently missed that memo.

    If you take it that about 10% of what you write is on-topic; and about 10% of that, was once considered a possibility; and 1% of that, was still being suggested as an alternative less than 20 years ago; and 10% of that you understood back then; and 1% of that you've ever actually applied in th field; and what remains is akin, but more dilute, than a Homeopathic Remedy. So dilute as to be nonexistent. But not stupid.

  3. That leaves one possibility; the one we're not meant to mention -- at least if we mean it as a serious possibility -- for fear of crossing the PC boundaries.

    What they hay! This place is dead anyway.

    It -- the unmentionable possibility -- rhythms with: 'gentle senility'.

    If you are, you won't realise it, and won't defend it; if you aren't, and do, it shows your intent is malignant.

In short, you're obviously not clever; and it's questionable if you are stupid; which only leaves the latter alternative, and that looking harder and harder to discount.

With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". The enemy of (IT) success is complexity.
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. Suck that fhit

In reply to Re^2: Is it still worth learning Perl as a first language? by BrowserUk
in thread Is it still worth learning Perl as a first language? by tm2383

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.