note BrowserUk <H4>Downvoted!</H4> <p>Here's why: You do not put forward any arguments for either the <i>authority</i> or <i>efficacy</i> of the result of compliance with P::C. Nor do you state an single example or any reasoning for your conclusion that P::C improves beginners code. <P>You go one to say that: <i>"But they're not complete idiots, incapable of doing research on their own."</i>; clearly indicating that not everything P::C recommends is sacrosanct. But which ones? How does the beginner know which of the thousands of spurious and pointless whinges that P::C spews at them is worthy of further research? <h4>And, when they reach different conclusions to you; are you going to accept their "beginner's research" judgement in good faith?</h4> <p>Or will you simply judge anyone who has a differing opinion to you, not as one who has taken the time and research and thought to have reach the point of having their <i>mind entirely made up</i>; but rather as someone who exhibits "hate" for a piece of software, as you have accused me? <p>You simply state: "I like; I use it; therefore it must be good." <p>Which is the exact same problem as P::C. It codifies an opinion as having authority on the basis of puerile and simplistic justifications. And without open and transparent debate and the reaching of some kind of consensus; it does not bear that authority. <p>Pick (almost) any single one of P::C critiques and open up the discussion here to all comers comments; and I'll bet you'll never reach a consensus; without you give a specific example of the critiqued construct or idiom in situ. And even if you get a consensus for that specific usage, it will be <b>only</b> for that specific usage; and probably a contrived one at that. <P>And for every supporting example; an alternative challenging example will be contrivable. <p>And that is the crux of my position; P::C does not (and cannot) take <b>context</b> into consideration. It attempts to make black or white that which is inherently gray. <blockquote><i> And they're never going to learn it without someone (or something) correcting them.</i></blockquote> <p>Exactly so. But demeaning the programmer's art and experience by allowing the substitution a dumb pattern matching algorithm, for proper (human) code reviews, is the greatest danger of a piece of software like P::C. It diminishes the knowledge, experience, intuition and dedication of the programmer to that of an electronic cardboard cutout. <p>A surgeon friend of mine agrees that software is at least as hard and complex as surgery; and it takes 7 - 10 years before a surgeon is considered qualified. <p>If you personally find P::C useful to you, I have no problem with that -- it it your time and cycles you are wasting -- but suggesting that it is a good way to teach new programmers is bordering on criminality as far as I'm concerned. <p>I've spent 35+ years acquiring my programming skills; and I'm not about to substitute my experience, intuition and judgement with a dumb text matching script. And I heartily commend anyone who considers programming to be more than a rote-learnt way to earn a crust, to consider carefully the efficacy of same. <div class="pmsig"><div class="pmsig-171588"> <hr /> <font size=1 > <div>With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'</div> <div>Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.</div> <div>"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". </div> <div>In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. </div> </font> </div></div> p 1011175 1012167