Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
The stupid question is the question not asked
 
PerlMonks  

How many man-hours would you estimate you have invested in learning Perl?

by punch_card_don (Curate)
on Apr 01, 2013 at 15:11 UTC ( #1026502=poll: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??

vote on How many man-hours would you estimate you have invested in learning Perl?

We all have only so many hours of life available to us. We must use some of those to learn the skills that allow us to make a living so we can use the remaining hours to do other things. Those learing hours are an investment in the quality of the other hours. The more we invest in learning a skill, the more we have a personal interest in ensuring that skill is well seen and in-demand.

 

Zero - I'm just a bot passing through.
[bar] 35/7%
None - I refuse to acknowledge the term man hours, you patriarchical pig. But I have many person-hours. And let me tell you.....
[bar] 24/5%
Thanks to Scalosian water, I learned everything there is to know about Perl in a blink of your un-accelerated eye.
[bar] 9/2%
Just a few - I'm new to this, and now totally freaked out by the number of hours implied in the answers below.
[bar] 54/11%
The beauty of Perl is that while the well of capabilities is deep, the basic framework is so intuitive that you can become pretty darn productive very quickly, so while my total hours invested is low, I want to point out that my ability to produce in Perl is much greater than you might expect by that number.
[bar] 95/19%
Hundreds - So what can I do to help make Perl an in-demand language so I get the maximum return on my investment?
[bar] 128/26%
More time than I've spent learning basic social skills.
[bar] 113/23%
What "other things"? All my time goes to learning Perl. It's become an obsession.
[bar] 30/6%
493 total votes
Comment on How many man-hours would you estimate you have invested in learning Perl?
Re: How many man-hours would you estimate you have invested in learning Perl?
by blue_cowdawg (Prior) on Apr 01, 2013 at 15:49 UTC

    It would seem that every time I type "emacs" in the command line and start off by entering "#!/usr/bin/perl -w" into the editor session I end up learning something new about Perl. So I've never stopped learning Perl.

    Coming to Perl Monks for the first time (2001) helped me understand how much more I needed to learn back then. I thought I was "Hotel-Sierra" at Perl and found out that there were many corners of the language I had not looked in.

    Regex'es continue to plague me no matter how much reading on the subject I've done, no matter how many examples I've tried no matter what. Every time I get a regex to execute as I expect I do the happy victory dance.

    Seems to me you never stop learning this language we all love so much...


    Peter L. Berghold -- Unix Professional
    Peter -at- Berghold -dot- Net; AOL IM redcowdawg Yahoo IM: blue_cowdawg
      Let me teach you something else. :)

      #!/usr/bin/perl -w is not something you should use. Specifically the -w in there will enable warnings for ALL code, which can include modules which were expressly written to run correctly without warnings (like Coro).

      A better preamble would be:
      #!/usr/bin/env perl use strictures;
      Happy coding! :D
            #!/usr/bin/perl -w is not something you should use. Specifically the -w in there will enable warnings for ALL code, which can include modules which were expressly written to run correctly without warnings (like Coro).

        Not sure I follow your argument. I want warnings turned on. It has saved my butt many a time and yes I'm aware of the drawbacks.


        Peter L. Berghold -- Unix Professional
        Peter -at- Berghold -dot- Net; AOL IM redcowdawg Yahoo IM: blue_cowdawg

        #!/usr/bin/env perl isn't portable, as not all platforms have env in the same place. You should use this instead:

        #!/bin/sh exec perl -x $0 "$@" #!perl # your perl code goes here
Re: How many man-hours would you estimate you have invested in learning Perl?
by ChuckularOne (Parson) on Apr 01, 2013 at 16:28 UTC
    I've been a member of the Monastery for over 13 years (wow, now I feel old). I have used perl in some form almost every weekday (and many weekends) for that period and the 5-7 years prior to it. I can't even begin to estimate what fraction of my life I have spent with perl.
Re: How many man-hours would you estimate you have invested in learning Perl?
by swkronenfeld (Hermit) on Apr 01, 2013 at 18:54 UTC

    In school, I had a really boring stats class right after my OSes class and my buddy and I used to skip it and sit in the labs and code up CGI scripts. My school didn't teach Perl (or any other scripting language), but in our minds CGI==Perl, so we Googled and "learned Perl" from those sites that people now caution others about on the Monestary.

    That summer, knowing Perl got me my first internship at a big company, where I was introduced the the Perl Bible. I read it practically cover-to-cover over the course of that job and that was really "learning Perl".

    Sometime during the course of that job I discovered perlmonks and that was the first time I really started to understand the scope of Perl.

    That new Perl knowledge led to a second internship, followed by a first real job, then a second. And along the way I never really stopped learning, with each job bringing new areas of the language to explore.

    So really, skipping class (to learn Perl) has been the gift that keeps on giving.

      http://xkcd.com/519/

      package Cow { use Moo; has name => (is => 'lazy', default => sub { 'Mooington' }) } say Cow->new->name
Re: How many man-hours would you estimate you have invested in learning Perl?
by talexb (Canon) on Apr 01, 2013 at 20:13 UTC

    Interesting question.

    Since I started tinkering with it in about 1997, I've been trying learn new stuff every chance I get. With the continuous flood of new goodies pouring into CPAN, I'm always learning new stuff. I also learn when I get a chance to go to http://yapcna.org -- last year's event at Madison, WI was another terrific opportunity to learn the latest cool stuff.

    Perl 6 is being refined and updated as I write, so there's that to stay up to date on, though I don't have time myself to install it and tinker with it.

    I replied 'hundreds' of hours, but it's probably more like 'thousands'.

    Alex / talexb / Toronto

    "Groklaw is the open-source mentality applied to legal research" ~ Linus Torvalds

Re: How many man-hours would you estimate you have invested in learning Perl?
by Anonymous Monk on Apr 02, 2013 at 00:55 UTC

    I don't know, its not like I kept track

Re: How many man-hours would you estimate you have invested in learning Perl?
by Discipulus (Deacon) on Apr 02, 2013 at 07:39 UTC
    hundreds of hours.. a, plaifull, obsession: when i rest in the bathroom and i have no Perl lines to read, i look at ceramic tiles and i see only an ArrayOfArray..

    L*

    there are no rules, there are no thumbs..
Re: How many man-hours would you estimate you have invested in learning Perl?
by FloydATC (Hermit) on Apr 02, 2013 at 20:20 UTC
    Hundreds, nay thousands. First started learning Perl some 15 years ago and I'm still discovering and figuring new things out. As an example, it's only been a few days since the first time I ever solved a complicated problem using a oneliner combining split(), map() and join() without peeking at the docs or someone elses code.

    I don't really see it as an investment though, because learning Perl isn't something I do in order to achieve some goal. I see it more as practicing a form of art that only other geeks can truly appreciate.

    Do it by numbers, do it for a living, do it to get better, because someone told you to, or just do it because you enjoy doing it.

    -- Time flies when you don't know what you're doing
Re: How many man-hours would you estimate you have invested in learning Perl?
by pemungkah (Priest) on Apr 03, 2013 at 18:13 UTC
    None - I refuse to acknowledge the term man hours, you patriarchical pig. But I have many person-hours. And let me tell you.....
    I find this really offensive.

    Using a straw feminist to pretend that ha, ha, exclusive language isn't a microaggression and privilege isn't an issue is bullshit and has no place on a site that is supposedly meant to be welcoming to everyone.

      I agree with pemungkah on this one. It's a strident and wildly inaccurate attempt at a joke on feminism, and further implies that the straw feminist would then go on to continue bitching about something or other, seemingly irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I'm a female, something of a nerd and yes, a feminist (and even as I write this, I can FEEL the number of eyes rolling at that statement). As such, I will simply say that the "...you patriarchal pig..." comment does a disservice to this entire community, male AND female, by further alienating a group of people that are among your greatest assets and champions.
        I'm a female, something of a nerd and yes, a feminist (and even as I write this, I can FEEL the number of eyes rolling at that statement).

        This is a precision example of where this kind of "joke" goes.

        Because you, the original poster, think making this kind of joke is hilarious, you've painted everyone else on Perlmonks as thinking this kind of crap is OK.

        Here we have a potential contributor, and supported of Perl, who now feels like we're a bunch of exclusionist jerks who think diversity is dumb - and therefore Perl programmers as a whole think this way too.

        Don't argue that she's being too sensitive. If someone essentially says, "I don't like people like you," it goes in no matter how "tough" you are - and it sure doesn't make you want to hang out with the person who says it - and it absolutely creates a bad association at an emotional level (for both men and women - there are no Vulcans or machine intelligences here).

        So congratulations! You've made great strides in convincing someone else that Perl programmers are elitist, insensitive dicks who like their boys club and don't want anyone who isn't just like them around.

        Nice one sockpuppet troll. Brand new account made just to make this post.

        I'm a female, something of a nerd and yes, a feminist (and even as I write this, I can FEEL the number of eyes rolling at that statement)

        You know, I didn't :) I'm of the opinion that almost ever guy on here is a feminist, even the joke poster/defenders

        Funny thing is ... straw or not ... that's exactly what happened. I say the joke was spot on.

        Jenda
        Enoch was right!
        Enjoy the last years of Rome.

      Hi pemungkah!

      Calm down. It's just a joke. You may not think its funny, and that it is politically incorrect. But having this option is in no way implying that perlmonks is supporting racism or genderism.

      Look at some of the other options. They also make fun on certain social groups. E.g.

      • Thanks to Scalosian water ...: What a mean play on people who think that Star Trek is reality ... we should be ashamed!
      • ... so I get the maximum return on my investment: Looking at many postings here, people who only want to learn as few perl possible, in order to maximize their ROI, are not treated with respect at all
      • More time than I've spent learning basic social skills: It is so easy to mock nerds. And so mean, because they never take revenge.
      In fact, there is no option a normal monk can chose, without being insulted being obsessive (last answer), snobbish (5th answer) or a noob (4th answer). If you judge perlmonks by just this poll, obviously no-one is welcome (except possibly bots).

      So please don't take this poll seriously, and don't get enraged by that option. I don't see the need of a some-monks-are-discriminated-because-of-their-gender-we-need-to-end-this-discussion.

      So long and have fun!

      Rata (who likes that poll)

        it's one of those seemingly harmless jokes we're confronted with regularly. I see a big difference to the other options. I don't have any problem with the "social skills" option.
        and it goes one level further - it's not "only" discriminating women, but it's discriminating those who complain about discrimination by pretending that all feminists are aggressive. especially after the incident where a woman heard a bad joke in a conference audience and put a photo of the guys on twitter (which I think was a really bad idea).

        just like I don't generalize men all being sexist, I don't want feminists being generalized as aggressive.

        like it was said in a similar discussion months ago, it's also about context. in a group of friends this might be funny because you know how it was meant.

        Edit: What was here was a cruel and specific piece of satire that's served its purpose.

        In short: if you were reminded almost every day that you're not quite like everyone else here and if that difference were the focus of countless jokes, you might get tired of feeling singled out all the time. It's not about just one joke. It's about a culture that can't seem to stop focusing on the irrelevant things that make you different instead of the common things that the community is, ostensibly, about.

        Yeah, telling an African-American "bet you like fried chicken and watermelon" or saying "you're Asian, can you do my math homework?" is just a joke too.

        The other jokes do not take advantage of privilege. This one does.

        "it's just a joke", yeah right - that's crap. Why don't I just make some jokes about "niggers and watermelons" and we can all have a good laugh, I mean we don't need yet another discussion about racism or anything. Bullshit.

      I don't care if you say (or imply) that some Englishmen are thick, greedy, ugly or unreasonable; because it is true.

      I do care if you state or imply that *all* Englishmen are any of those -- or their inverses -- because: a) you could not know that; b) it is statistically unlikely; c) those types of characterisations are subjective. So even if you knew *all* Englishmen; and concluded that for you they *all* fit your chosen characterisation; it will not be so for all of them for everyone else. It is therefore untrue. A falsehood that should be challenged. And against the laws of most civilised states to do so.

      So even if you could infer from the OP joke that speaker was in fact a women, rather than (say) some litigation-shy male trying to over-compensate -- which you cannot -- it is either naive, or fantastical or fanatical to believe that the intent was to cause readers to believe that all feminists are so obsessed with gender-neutral terminology. Indeed, it is sexist to believe, imply or state that.

      And as soon as you move away from the "all feminists" to 'some feminists' or 'a feminist somewhere', the possibility of sexism goes away.

      Unless that is you are prepared to claim -- and demonstrate -- that no feminist does, or ever has, seen the use of gender-specific terms as an affront to womankind.

      Because at that point the joke becomes a (misguided) woman -- perhaps under the delusion that she is furthering the feminist cause -- making a stupid remark regarding the use of gender-specific terms being applied to gender-neutral concepts.

      Just as there are some stupid Englishmen; so have there been some feminists -- of both genders -- that have cited the use of gender-specific terminology when used to describe gender-neutral activities and concepts, as examples of sexism.

      So, unless you are of the view that sexism is a one-way street that can only be perpetrated by men against women -- in which case further discussion is pointless -- concluding that the OP joke was deliberately intended to both target *all* female feminists and by doing so cause male readers to view womenkind in a lesser light, then your calling-out of the joke as sexism, and all the follow-on posts in support of that charge, along with the demands for its removal and demands for apologies are both a) wrong; b) themselves sexist (against menkind).

      That is to say, the attempted cure is worse than the original sin.

      My hope is that this contribution will be seen as an attempt to settle the issue rather than anything contentious worthy of further ire and debate. That it will both close the issue in this thread and provoke (quiet) contemplation that might prevent people going off half-cocked in similar ways in the future.

      That is probably a forlorn hope, but I am apt to dream.

        I think I understood you. Please correct me where I have not.

        I think this is the core of what you are trying to say:

        So, unless you are of the view that sexism is a one-way street that can only be perpetrated by men against women -- in which case further discussion is pointless -- concluding that the OP joke was deliberately intended to both target *all* female feminists and by doing so cause male readers to view womenkind in a lesser light, then your calling-out of the joke as sexism, and all the follow-on posts in support of that charge, along with the demands for its removal and demands for apologies are both a) wrong; b) themselves sexist (against menkind).
        I don't believe that I made any statements saying that it was a one-way street, and in any case, it's not relevant to talk about hypothetical things that might sometime happen somewhere to somebody. I was talking about a specific event, the poll entry, in a particular place, here. Bringing in all these hypotheticals feels to me like we're wandering away from the actual situation in a fog of assumption and hypothesis, but I'm willing to be wrong. Can you explain it more simply, perhaps using the example of the poll to illustrate?

        I said it felt to me that here, in this particular case, where the "I refuse" item was written for the poll, that the statement as it was written referred to a caricature of feminism called a "straw feminist": "A character whose "feminism" is drawn only for the purposes of either proving them wrong or ridiculing them. More likely to fight an imaginary male conspiracy rather than actually helping disadvantaged women, often being an out-and-out man hater with exaggerated beliefs." (See? I was kind and didn't link to TV Tropes!) I read that poll entry that way. Do you read it differently? If you do, I'd like you to explain what it is meant to say and imply. (I may disagree, but I'll keep talking with you.)

        I did not say that it was intended to "cause male readers to view womenkind in a lesser light". I said it was a clumsy joke that seemed to me to imply that feminists are all "out-and-out man haters with exaggerated beliefs". I have seen a lot of tap-dancing around this, a lot of what it is not, but very little about what it is. If anyone really has a very specific explanation of the joke that is different - what it specifically is meant to mean - that would be useful information to better inform the discussion. In my personal experience a reluctance to get to grips with an issue like this means it really needs to be worked out and looked at. Often there are assumptions that, once laid out, turn out to be unwarranted.

        For the same of trying to find a consensus, let's see if I understand your logic by making a parallel. I'll try to remap this to the bus and feet again.

        Let's say I get on the Chinatown bus here in San Francisco. I'm wearing my heavy hiking boots, having just gotten back from a trip to Yosemite. I like my hiking boots; they're really comfortable and support my feet, and I feel good and safe and warm in them. Today the bus is really crowded. Gee, there are a lot more people here than usual! I work my way back as usual to the middle of the bus, and in the process I almost step on the foot of an old lady who only speaks Chinese, so I don't understand she's saying, "Hey, watch your feet! You could have stepped on me! Those big shoes could hurt someone on a bus with these extra people on it!" because it's in a language that's just noises to me. So now a young man who speaks both Mandarin and English says, "Hey, you just missed that lady's foot! You need to be more careful! And you shouldn't wear those big shoes on this bus!".

        If I understood what you were saying, I come to the conclusion you're saying that the young man who speaks both languages is being a racist because he's translated the Chinese that couldn't be understood and is telling me, the non-Chinese person, that I'm doing something that could hurt people - I didn't, but I could have - and that there some things I should do to avoid it, even if I didn't directly hurt someone this time. The other thing you seem to be saying is that is was actually inherently wrong to speak to me at all to tell me something he's I'm not understanding.

        This parallel could be off; I'd appreciate your help in trying to fix it if it is. Sometimes metaphors are more powerful ways to work something out than trying to deal with loaded situations.

        The story, as I've written it, is meant to be a very close parallel to the poll situation. When I mention potential gender-related issues. I'm trying to translate a language that, on the evidence in this thread, doesn't make sense to a lot of the more-vocal Perlmonks. When I'm talking about this stuff, I'm trying to introduce the core concepts that make it easier to understand the component parts of situations that discourage people from being part of Perlmonks.

        Here's a for-instance. When I say the term "Using 'Man-cave' like that is an attack", I'm using shorthand to say "in this context someone is taking the perfectly lovely concept of a guy having his own private and personal space where he can indulge himself and his interests, and giving it the spin by way it is being used of "this is my place, owned by me, a man, where I make all the decisions, and things that concern you, who not a man, are unwelcome, and will be ignored and ridiculed because they are not anything I care about and therefore not man stuff and consequently completely unimportant". In short: "Mine. You're worthless. Leave."

        I am, and let me say this in bold, not saying any person here is bad. Even the "cancerous asshole" and "mangina" people. You may have said something thoughtless, or even deliberately cruel - but those are actions, they are not "you".

        When I'm saying that something is "sexist", I'm saying, "I'm trying to let you know: this is said in a way that implies to certain people: we don't like you, we don't want you; if you are like the person we are talking about you are bad and should leave, and we will be as nasty and unkind as we can to you".

        Nobody needs to make jokes that are needlessly cruel to people - even if they are people you don't know. If you do know someone who is angry about an issue and lashing out - try to sympathize. Try to see who they are. Try to understand them. Yes, it is very hard to deal with someone who is angry. It's much easier to be angry right back. But it gets us nowhere.

        Sympathy and tolerance are the lubricants that allow groups of people to grow. Anger, taunting, and belittling can draw an existing community together - but as a policy, it sows the potential for explosions later, when suddenly one of the closely-bound people suddenly is "one of those people".

        I am speaking only because I see signs of the most active and vocal members binding themselves closer through tightening their circle, not through saying and living that "we all love Perl - even though we are different, let us find a way to love it together and support each other, finding a way for our differences to coexist here."

        I think you're saying this, as I am trying to: that you want Perlmonks to be as big as it can possibly be. I'm trying to find a way to remove the intolerant bits that make it harder to grow. I think you have ideas about this too. I'd like to know them. We very likely won't agree at first, but perhaps there is a way we can.

Re: How many man-hours would you estimate you have invested in learning Perl?
by fisher (Priest) on Apr 04, 2013 at 09:09 UTC

    I did not invest any 'man-hours', I just did it for fun. That was a text-based online game, MUD, and client was extendable with perl.

    Back in those days I was kinda perl hater cause I could do anything in pure C or in shell/awk. So what's this man-hours thing in this case?

Re: How many man-hours would you estimate you have invested in learning Perl?
by TJPride (Pilgrim) on Apr 04, 2013 at 12:56 UTC
    I started with Perl back like 18 years ago when I was still a teen. Needed to learn it so I could modify Matt Wright's WWWBoard, which was all the rage back then but looked like crap. I bought How to Learn CGI Programming with Perl 5 in a Week, which actually did teach me enough in a week to muddle my way through WWWBoard, but my level of skill was still laughable at best. Some years later I ran across Perlmonks, spent six months to a year studying code solutions and posting my own every day, and gradually got pretty good at the syntax and algorithms, even if modules were still a bit of a mystery. Fast-forward to five or six years ago, and I got a client who needed messy data from a variety of ancient systems cleaned up and imported to a relational database format, then searched using highly complex queries, so I figured the data munging aspects made this a job for Perl. A year and much pain and suffering later, we had the basic system put together. I learned how to make my own modules (more or less) and install other modules. Been upgrading the system periodically ever since.

    Given, I prefer PHP for more presentational sites, but any job that requires a lot of regular expressions, nested sorts, etc. is a job for Perl. PHP's syntax, especially in the area of sorts, is just so much more clunky. And since I can run Perl natively from Terminal on my Mac, it's more convenient for small one-off data-conversion scripts.

    Short version - probably thousands of hours total.

Re: How many man-hours would you estimate you have invested in learning Perl?
by ksublondie (Pilgrim) on Apr 04, 2013 at 21:33 UTC
    Interesting question...

    Let's see: I've been doing my current job for approximately 6 years coding primarily in perl with no prior perl experience. Every project is a learning experience. I put in conservatively 40 hrs a week, minus a few hrs a week screw-off time. Then there are the 3 weeks vacation time each year until last year, when I started getting 4...can't forget about medical/maternity leave...carry the 1...round to the nearest whole number...

    10,260hrs...give or take...

Re: How many man-hours would you estimate you have invested in learning Perl?
by robsku (Initiate) on Apr 08, 2013 at 00:47 UTC

    I had hard time choosing between 5th and 6th, but even though it's been a large number of hours since I first tried writing perl (in 2002 when I switched from Windows (95) to Linux (Red Hat 7.1) I do think that 5th fits better to how I think of Perl - the number of hours is simply because there is *so much* you can learn but it pales in comparison to how little it took to achieve stuff much more complex in other languages which I had in total studied longer then than I have perl today.

    I have learned only little more that I can achieve than I could with other languages back then, but there's a huge number of things I didn't think of being possible without complex hard work and a lot of code that I now can with perl - which also has, as side effect, taught me ways to less complex ways to achieve same with any language but that are still easyer in perl than in most others.

    About the 6th - the word "investment" in my case wouldn't mean investment in monetary sense and I would like to see perl as in-demand language mostly because it would make many things easier for me personally (not the least being having to code with PHP simply because I wan't to use wordpress on my site and extend it's functionality - I didn't choose it for the language it was made with but the fact that what reasons I chose it for are more important than what I have to code in to extend it doesn't lessen the grief experienced when coding in PHP).

    HackNBlog - Linux/*nix, programming & digital freedoms centered blog.
    Back since early 2011 with new address, same content.
    Peace&Love, Jani "robsku" Saksa
Re: How many man-hours would you estimate you have invested in learning Perl?
by schwern (Scribe) on Apr 09, 2013 at 02:36 UTC

    tl;dr: Please remove the "man-hours" gag from the vote. If you're going to make stupid jokes at someone's expense, make them at your own.

    This may be a small thing, but it illustrates some pretty huge issues. What it comes down to is this: which is more important, being able to make stupid jokes at the expense of women? Or making people feel comfortable at Perlmonks? I'm going to be loud about this because there are so many in this community that will either think it's ok or keep quiet, either out of not knowing what to say or not wanting to be involved in the backlash.

    We're 95%+ men. We're part of an industry that has a terrible attitude towards women. In that place we're all in there's no such thing as "it's just a joke". Here's all the things I read into this little bit of humor...

    "It's just a joke, lighten up" says so much. It says "my stupid joke is more important than offending you". It says "you shouldn't feel the way you feel". It says "I'm not going to take this issue seriously". The stupider and smaller and cruder the joke, the more it says "you're not important".

    I see a ham-fisted caricature of feminism. It makes fun of anyone who would try to talk about the things we say and how they might reflect on others who are not like us. It's such a crude and tired caricature that it says more about the person who wrote it than it does about feminists. It says that person has a childish view of gender politics, doesn't want to think about why we're 95% men, and this is how they lash out.

    I see answering a simple vote about Perl, on the front page of a major Perl web site, turning into yet another opportunity to take a shot at women. It's another instance of the gauntlet of mild abuse you need to run just to be involved in technology. This is a vote about Perl, why does it have to contain a shot at women?

    It says that we're willing to take shots at women for the sake of our amusement. Whomever wrote it found it amusing, I don't doubt, but who pays for it? Who is the victim here? Women and feminists. It says "hey underpowered and under-represented group, you get to pay for our joke! Thanks for taking one for the team you're not really part of!"

    By not making the responses simple, it adds baggage to the response. I can't just say I don't put time into Perl, I have to join in on a stupid joke. I can't just say I put in a few hours, I have to take on the identify of some "freaked out" user. I can't just say I put in hundreds of hours, I have to imply that I want to help develop Perl. What should be a simple poll is assigning personalities and traits to the time spent on Perl, reflecting the biases of who wrote the poll and driving people towards dishonest answers. I realize this is Perlmonks and not terribly serious, but it's still there.

    I am a feminist. I am offended at having shots taken at my expense, my friend's expense and women's expense. We should be above that. People should be able to come to Perlmonks to talk about Perl, relax and enjoy it. Not get their politics or gender shoved in their face on the front page for the sake of somebody's stupid joke.

    If you're going to make a joke at somebody's expense, make it at your own.

    Please remove the entry from the vote. Replace it with a simple "none". Reflect on why this was a bad idea. Consider an apology.

      Yes, it illustrates a pretty huge issue. And issue of education induced oversensitivity and belief that just because your big ego doesn't like something everyone else is required to run away screaming and bring jewels and flowers to appease the self appointed goddess.

      There are jokes about everyone all over the place, how come only those that may, if stretched far enough, might be by selected few be in the exact right light considered derogatory to women, cause a long thread of insults? What's so special about them? Are they really that sensitive? Or did they find out that screaming will get them attention and special treatment?

      You can't caricature current feminism. You can't caricature a caricature.

      Jenda
      Enoch was right!
      Enjoy the last years of Rome.

        Asking that we avoid jokes whose target doesn't appreciate them (and is grossly under-represented in Perl for some reason) is hardly equivalent to "bringing jewels and flowers". Unless you have some kind of educationally-induced oversensitivity to criticism of your wit.

        Aren't you the one asking for special treatment? The unique right to make cracks about whoever you want, without regard for whether they'll appreciate the joke?

        Are they really that sensitive? Or did they find out that screaming will get them attention and special treatment?
        Do you really think that kind of attention and that "special treatment" we're seeing here is enjoyable? That's a serious question. I'm trying to understand what you think.
        Yes, I'm getting some nice private messages/emails from people who agree with me, (thanks), but I still would be happier if there was no reason for that at all. Honestly.

        Maybe you'd have an easier time understanding the people here who are saying "This makes me feel uncomfortable" if you listened to them instead of trying to outdo yourself mocking a caricature that doesn't represent anyone.

        How is writing:

        ... everyone else is required to run away screaming and bring jewels and flowers to appease the self appointed goddess.

        ... supposed to help the situation?

        There are jokes about everyone all over the place....

        Why should that matter? We're talking about a very specific comment in this thread to which several people have said "This makes me feel less welcome in the Perl community." Is it even relevant that in other places other people say horrible things?

        Or did they find out that screaming will get them attention and special treatment?

        Who's screaming? Is claiming that anyone is screaming supposed to help the situation?

      Welcome to the birth of Witchhunt Democracy.

      Leading the Lynch Mob today, for one day only, your Witchfinder General in passing, will be the Mighty Schwern.

      Pick a cause, any lost clause, and stick a plausible sounding, self-righteous label on it and he'll rally the troopers to you aid.

      Cause unappraised, source unseen, reason shall not stand in his way.

        Matt Trout wrote that. Read it: personal attacks, word choice, word *style*. And cowardly hiding behind anonymity.

      If you're going to make a joke at somebody's expense, make it at your own.

      Isn't the same thing?

Reaped:
by NodeReaper (Curate) on Apr 09, 2013 at 03:51 UTC
Re: How many man-hours would you estimate you have invested in learning Perl?
by aaron_teejay_trevena on Apr 09, 2013 at 07:06 UTC
    Seriously, remove the Misogyny and apologise - what a stupid and crass "joke" about feminism, it's unwelcome and unwelcoming.

      Seriously, remove the Misogyny and apologise

      Do you think he can edit the poll? Because he can't you know

        Meh, delete then. Haven't seen any sign of an apology either.
Re: How many man-hours would you estimate you have invested in learning Perl?
by Lady_Aleena (Chaplain) on Apr 09, 2013 at 07:09 UTC

    pemungkah, shetech, tinita, and schwern: As a woman in the PerlMonks community, I am not offended by the "I refuse to acknowledge the term man hours" option which seems to target a specific type of woman. As with every other poll hosted here, I see them all as tongue-in-cheek humor. If I were to get offended by every instance of this kind of humor on the web, I would be in a straight jacket or have had a heart attack by now. I will not try to divine punch_card_don's intent with the option. Has anyone asked him why he included it and if he meant any offense by it?

    I am for gender equality, so do not think for a moment I would allow myself or other women to be degraded in a serious discussion nor would most of the people here in my experience. If a woman were attacked for being a woman, I know in my heart the administration would take immediate action. I have never had any trouble being a woman on PerlMonks.

    So, please do not get offended by something so inconsequential as a poll on PerlMonks. As for me, I do not have the energy to get so worked up over it. I am going to go back to writing more perl and talking in the Chatterbox.

    PS. The only drawback I have encountered being a woman on PerlMonks is newbies who like to send me private messages for help eschewing the guys. I am definitely not as nice as some of the guys here, and more importantly, I do not know as much as they do. Why is it newbies come to me first?

    Have a cookie and a very nice day!
    Lady Aleena

      Why is it newbies come to me first?

      Could it be that Lady implies some sort of, code of honor or etiquette or some such ?

      Bad experiences with Your Mother or GrandFather or Neighbour?

      Fear of critters like Ratazong and grizzley?

      Could it be your homenode pic isn't scary?

      Hmm, I wonder if Lady Punchaleena would invite the same inquiries :p

      You're my hero. Bravo.

      As a mere observer, what concerns me is not so much the original poll choice.

      What concerns me far more is the vitriolic reaction: the many comments actively seeking to raise the bar and be ever more mean-spirited and condescending. Is it really so unthinkable that we should respect someone else's right to be offended? Would it be so mortally embarrassing to admit that maybe one's joke didn't work as well as expected for the particular audience?

      The joke in the poll was in poor taste. It happens. The schoolyard bullying that has followed is inexcusable, and the conversation about that is much more important.

      Lady Aleena, I hear you that this didn't bother you, and I'm glad that for whatever reasons it didn't. I believe it may be because you've learned that despite social missteps like this one, there are a lot of great people here, or simply that because of who you are, people treat you very well. (And there's nothing wrong with that! Everybody has people they really like. Lady_Aleena is one of those for many, including me.)

      But I would like to be clear here: I didn't say "I think this would bother Lady_Aleena". I said, "this bothers me," and I said why: I feel like it paints a false picture of who we are. I think that 90%+ of the people on Perlmonks really don't think that jokes like that are polite to make.

      If we're truly trying to build a level playing field for everyone who comes to Perlmonks, then it should be a space in which it's possible to say, "I am uncomfortable with this" and get real discussion about the issue. Even if I'm completely off-base.

      Discussion is not, "you're wrong, shut up and go away", just in case there was doubt about that. It's actually listening, actually considering, interacting honestly and directly.

      Sure it's possible that the community standards are different from mine. But it should be a discussable question as to whether they are as good as they could be, as welcoming as they could be, and as open as they could be. I was shocked and stunned at the level of anger and hate in some of the replies, and I did react badly, and I regret having done that. I know better than that.

      What was said to me did not feel like the sometimes scratchy, but generally cohesive place I thought I knew after my 13 years here. That makes me quite sad.

        ..it should be a space in which it's possible to say, "I am uncomfortable with this"

        But that's not what you originally wrote.

        You originally went on the attack - very first post. You weren't just uncomfortable with it, you found it "really offensive". It wasn't just maybe a little politically-incorrect, it was a whole construct to cloak agression in a strawman. And every male Monk was a carrier of vile privilege they had better acknowledge and renounce or they are part of a problem. That one post was infinitely more offensive by it's overt, unmistakable epxression than anything one could infer from the original joke through a biased lens. That's why you got flack back - because you overtly offended people.

        And ever since, you made whole swaths of Monks feel that they were unwelcome. Quite literaly saying in some posts that because a person didn't adhere to your values they didn't really belong. You have been the one trying to impose a code on everyone and excluding any mindset that doesnt' conform to your highly specialized way of thinking.

Re: How many man-hours would you estimate you have invested in learning Perl?
by punch_card_don (Curate) on Apr 09, 2013 at 12:35 UTC
    There is good news in this spectactle of a thread.

    The higher-ups asked me, as the poll author, to comment. Personally I don't think my opinion has any special value amongst all the others. And besides, what can really be said that's new in what's become just "yet another" pointless thread on the internet where people of differing opinions degenerate into talking very impolitely to each other.

    But I will note this: There is good news for Perl in this thread. And really, what's good for Perl is all that matters on here.

    What's good for Perl here is that, apparently, the Perl "community" is a real community in the most real-world sense. A place where people may have some common interests (like the welfare of a neighbourhood or of a language), but where people also have many differences.

    Perl benefits from the same broad spectrum of human thought and values as the real world. At one end you have people with an unenlightened, politically incorrect, sense of humour. At the other you have your shrill, humourless, agenda-driven flakes. And you have everything in-between.

    That kind of diversity of thought is one of the cornerstones of the success of mankind. It would be a sad and terrible thing if certain forces ever succeeded in making everyone conform to one sanctioned form of moribund group-think or group-speak. Terrible for humanity, and terrible for Perl.

    So - good news, recruiters. When you advertise for a Perl programmer, you will not be presented with a succession of homogenized Perl-bots. Your organization will be able to enrich itself with all the creative diversity of mankind, warts, offenses, and all.

    Have at it kids.




    Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.

      Interesting -- I look at Worst Nodes occasionally and saw a flurry of comments on this poll. Hoo boy.

      Reading some of the comments, it seems a couple of people got out of the wrong side of bed that morning, especially when you consider the option after the 'person-hours' choice (unpopular with some) referenced Star Trek (that's the original version, you young-un's).

      My only quibble with the survey was that you could have offered 'thousands' and tens of thousands' of hours. After developing in C for about fifteen years, I think I finally felt competent. I'm almost there with Perl, after about the same amount of time.

      Alex / talexb / Toronto

      "Groklaw is the open-source mentality applied to legal research" ~ Linus Torvalds

      This is a fantastic example of Attack By Apology. We have all the attributes...

      • Not recognizing that someone was hurt.
      • Using the opportunity to inflict more hurt.
      • Using the opportunity to drive the agenda behind their "joke".
      • No showing of understanding.
      • Treating the incident like a joke.
      • No acceptance of responsibility for the consequences of their action.
      • Attempted derailment.
      • Claiming it's part of diversity to accept their attacks on others.

      I'm glad the PerlMonks leadership has gotten involved and asked the author to respond, however they should have read it before they allowed it to be posted. It has given the offender another opportunity to attack.

      I do not accept the author's response, it's just another attack. It underlines why the poll is not "just a joke" but is a hurtful reflection of the author's politics and philosophy. It does not belong on the front page of PerlMonks. It has nothing to do with Perl or Perl Wisdom.

      I ask the PerlMonks leadership to take further public action.

        I ask the PerlMonks leadership to take further public action.

        Well, you're kinda asking in the wrong place

        Wait a minute - the OP may have made a joke that identified no particular person, or even any particular group, and which, interpreted through a certain lens, could possibly offend some people's sensitivities.

        But the response that started all this was a direct attack on the OP - labelling his/her personal sense of humour as agression, and further attacking all male members of the Perl community with the assertion that they are all, by error of birth, saddled with a privilege they must spend their lives being careful to renounce - deny the very persons they were born as - so important is it that certain other people's sensitivities not be ruffled.

        But that's just fine in other people's eyes?

        'Cause, parsed, the message of many of these posts is essentially that all the men on here need to watch their step, lest the self-appointed values-police get miffed over any perceived lack of due deference to their sensitivities.

        Oh, that's much less offensive than the OP. (not).

        Wait a minute - the OP may have made a joke that identified no particular person, or even any particular group, and which, interpreted through a certain lens, could possibly offend some people's sensitivities.

        But the response that started all this was a direct attack on the OP - labelling his/her personal sense of humour as agression, and further attacking all male members of the Perl community with the assertion that they are all, by error of birth, saddled with a privilege they must spend their lives being careful to renounce - deny the very persons they were born as - so important is it that certain other people's sensitivities not be ruffled.

        But that's just fine in other people's eyes?

        'Cause, parsed, the message of many of these posts is essentially that all the men on here need to spend their lives denying who they are and watching their step, lest the self-appointed values-police get miffed over any perceived lack of due deference to their sensitivities.

        Oh, that's much less offensive than the OP. (not).

        Uh, once again, apparently some people see things in posts that simply aren't there. "Attack by Apology"? I see no hint of an apology in the post being referred to. I do not see a shifty attempt at justification, at all. After all the vitriol in this thread, you expected him to talk all warm and fuzzy and reprentant to you? Gosh some people seem to read things that simply aren't there and get upset about them.

      "shrill, humourless, agenda-driven flakes".

      That is a far, far worse attack than your original "joke". You are absolutely proving the point.

      And you have disproportionately few women. I wonder why.

Re: How many man-hours would you estimate you have invested in learning Perl?
by webfiend (Vicar) on Apr 09, 2013 at 19:12 UTC

    Is it okay that I just think it's kind of a silly poll? It might not be sillier than your average Internet poll, but I tend to hope for more than I'm going to get. The available answers are ridiculous, offensive, and / or insufficient for gauging the skill range of PerlMonks members. Unfortunately, a silly poll has also produced a silly thread. There's pedantry, name-calling, and throwing out vile expressions in some slippery slope comparison to offensive poll choices.

    I've probably spent a thousand hours focused on learning Perl or Perl libraries, and then there are a few thousand more with learning by painful experience on the job. I'm not worried about getting maximum return from Perl on my investment. That investment has already served me rather well. My only concern is that I still wish I was a better Perl programmer.

    Anyways, I'm depressed now and need to go for a brief walk. Then I'm going to get back to work and try to remember: Never Read The Comments.

      Anyways, I'm depressed now and need to go for a brief walk. Then I'm going to get back to work and try to remember: Never Read The Comments.

      I've said it before, id://1027327|skipping] can be magical

View List Of Past Polls


Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others studying the Monastery: (13)
As of 2014-07-22 12:16 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    My favorite superfluous repetitious redundant duplicative phrase is:









    Results (112 votes), past polls