good chemistry is complicated,
and a little bit messy -LW
Re^3: The Most Essential Perl Development Tools Todayby BrowserUk (Pope)
|on Jan 08, 2013 at 07:38 UTC||Need Help??|
Here's why: You do not put forward any arguments for either the authority or efficacy 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.
You go one to say that: "But they're not complete idiots, incapable of doing research on their own."; 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?
And, when they reach different conclusions to you; are you going to accept their "beginner's research" judgement in good faith?
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 mind entirely made up; but rather as someone who exhibits "hate" for a piece of software, as you have accused me?
You simply state: "I like; I use it; therefore it must be good."
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.
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 only for that specific usage; and probably a contrived one at that.
And for every supporting example; an alternative challenging example will be contrivable.
And that is the crux of my position; P::C does not (and cannot) take context into consideration. It attempts to make black or white that which is inherently gray.
And they're never going to learn it without someone (or something) correcting them.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.