Clearly you are another fanboy of Shlomi's. -----Original Message----- From: Aristotle Pagaltzis <pagalt...@gmx.de> Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 23:46:02 +0100 To: Perl Module Authors List <module-authors@perl.org> Subject: Taking another swing [was: New module naming]
>* sawyer x <xsawy...@gmail.com> [2011-11-07 12:40]: >> * Shlomi Fish <shlo...@shlomifish.org> [2011-11-07 18:45]: >> > You shouldn't call lexical variables "$a" and "$b": >> >> That was a completely pointless comment, Shlomi. > >Only in sending it to the list instead of as a private comment, and in >his way of stating it as a do-not instead of a suggestion, followed by >the reason, followed by an off-topic disclaimer. In the opposite order >it would have gone down easy. (OK: and if it didn’t come from Shlomi. >Even if he gets better at tone now his reputation would haunt him.) > >> This is a case where $a and $b makes absolute sense. It is also the >> same case as Perl's sort() function that uses $a and $b to indicate >> two values of the same importance. > >There is no real case in which `my $a` or `my $b` make sense in Perl, >only a handful of cases where they don’t make no sense. I think his >point was a reasonable one, if minor. Once again, you too have missed the point. The original post was AN EXAMPLE. At now point was it intended to be usable code in which any reasonable person would be expected to literally use $a or $b. Shlomi was nitpicking for the purpose of nitpicking, so as to get his 2￠ in there, not for the purpose of contributing to the conversation as it his known to do on a regular basis. In other words, he was stirring up trouble for no reason. If this was anyone else BUT Shlomi, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. For whatever reason, you feel the need to defend him against "the newcomer" who dares to speak up against the status quo. > > >* Bob Parker <b...@perldevgeek.com> [2011-11-07 21:30]: >> * Shlomi Fish <shlo...@shlomifish.org> [2011-11-07 09:25]: >> > Well, I hope I didn't also make the same mistake (again). >> >> Yeah, you did. >> >> Quite frankly, I have been lurking on this list for years - first >> through the web then as an actual subscriber as I currently try to >> find time in my schedule to contribute a module that I finally believe >> to be worthy of adding to CPAN. >> >> I have seen a multitude of posts from you, Shlomi, and the vast >> majority of them have been of the them of "I don¹t like the way you >> are doing it, because it's not the way *I* would do it, but I really >> don't have a better way of doing it myself to contribute." >> >> Nobody likes a know-it-all. > >But the perpetrators of drive-by ad hominems are popular? Particularly >ones who come out of the woodworks to beat on the community punchbag >after he has already apologized? There was an apology? > >> Worse yet, nobody likes a know-it-all without the who doesn't have the >> credentials to back up their b.s. > >You made a mistake to bring up credentials. > >His have-to-fix-that attitude has driven Shlomi to pick up the upkeep >chores of a whole raft of neglected high-profile CPAN modules, and there >are quite a few perl patches to his name. Not all of them have been >applied, bless his eager heart :-), but neither have all of them gone >unappreciated. > >That looks like a lot more in credentials than you brought to the table. Honestly, you don't know me or my credentials. You have seen exactly 2 posts of mine on this mailing list - the grand total my contributions to the list to date. The reason I haven't contributed so far is because of back-biting, political, personal attacks like you have demonstrated so well here. To hell with furthering the cause of the language - let's form cliques and screw with those people who disagree with us, regardless of what they think. I have followed the career of Shlomi over the years since he first appeared on the scene. His very first appearances were full of strife and controversy. Sure, he may have taken over some projects, but not without disagreement and/or opposition. > >Sure, Shlomi suffers from overly rigid ideas of how to do things and is >too eager to dismiss the “old” way along with all other options. But he >isn’t stupid either, and he doesn’t just nitpick but contributes. No, not exactly. Based on this early postings that were full of criticisms and nitpicks of the various perl.org sites, Shlomi had PLENTY to say about those sites that certainly qualified as "nitpicking". Yes, he has contributed to CPAN. Goodie for him. CPAN contributes are not the be all/end all of a person's worth, however. > >Nor is he is in the habit of flaming people, much less talking about them >without knowing who he is talking about. Based on his previous postings to this and other lists, that's not exactly true. > >That’s a lot more than can be said about some people. That's quite a leap to make from 1 or 2 posts to the list to a generalized statement. If you don't like me based on your personal experience with me so far, then just say so. I'm a big boy, I can take it. Based on your responses to me, I don't particularly like you, either. > >> In this particular case, pretty much everyone clearly understood that >> what was given was a GENERIC EXAMPLE, not real code. It didn't call >> for code review, comment or criticism on the use of variables or their >> naming. What was requested was feedback on the naming of the MODULE. > >His point was valid, clumsy though his way of stating it was. The abuse >he invited with his clumsiness is out of all proportion for his sin. As my elders used to say in the days when common courtesy and manners were taught as a matter of course, it's not what you say but how you say it. He is point was NOT valid. Since anyone with a brain cell in their head understood that it was an EXAMPLE, what purpose did it serve to point out that REAL WORLD PROGRAMMING does not use $a and $b for lexical variables. Should Randal Schwartz rewrite the perldoc for the Schwartzian Transformation or the core perl team rewrite the sort perldocs to eliminate $a/$b because some idiot might confuse the examples that include $a and $b for real world code? Nope, didn't think so - because most real world developers understand the difference between examples and the real world. As he should have. You can beat a dead horse and continue to attack me. Or you can get a clue. Other might be afraid of speaking their minds and pissing off the powers-that-be in the perl hierarchy. Not me. I really don’t care if I get a module published on CPAN. I subscribe to these lists strictly to keep updated on the latest happenings, and as luck would have it I have approximately 180 domains to register with. I have written many perl modules, but have chosen not to publish them on CPAN so far because I disagree on a fundamental level with the core politics of CPAN and its ruling class. This exchange is but one of the reasons why. > >> There is probably a reason why your suggestions are ignored, for >> everything from "improving the perl.org site" to "redesigning the perl >> training documentation" to ridiculous commentary like this. Dig deep >> and you can probably figure it out. > >A lot of them are ignored. A lot of them are not. Umm,yeah, Ok. If you want to continue this, I suggest you take it private. No need to bore the rest of the list. If Shlomi has issues with anything I've said, he can take it up with me personally. Other then that, I'm done with you. > >-- >Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
