On Thu, 30 Nov 2000, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> What we're doing is *designing* the building. A more appropriate analogy is
> one where you walk into the architect's conference room and start
> commenting on and fiddling with the design of the building. While the sign
> says "Open Meeting", the expectation is that you're competent in the areas
> you'll choose to participate in.
Help, not hinder. Learn by doing, not by dooming. ;-)
I am certainly hoping that folks on both sides of the fence will be fairly
reasonable. Yes, we certainly shouldn't be asking why the architect is putting
in all these, what are these? load-bearing walls? what the hell are they?, but
it shouldn't be too unbearable to occasionally field questions such as why he's
choosing to make the hallway ten feet wide, when it seems to be taking away
from the space in the men's restroom. (A local ordinance, or maybe he's going
to put in another restroom down the hall later.)
I forget who proposed it originally, but I thought it an excellent analogy, and
an excellent model for Perl development. Like any tradecraft, there are
masters, apprentices, and the common consumer. The apprentice shouldn't
master, just as the common consumer shouldn't apprentice. Unfortunately, right
now it's "choose your own category." I'll elect to choose low. I'm an "Perl
apprentice wanna-be", in search of an opportunity to prove that I am apprentice
material. (I think too many PAWBs are looking for opportunities to prove that
they are master material. I'm not about to shoot myself in the foot that way.
At least on purpose. Slap me around if I get too obnoxious.)
Apologies to David Grove: much longer winded this time....
--
Bryan C. Warnock
RABA Technologies
