Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
"be consistent"
 
PerlMonks  

Re: Do not feed the trolls...

by Wassercrats
on May 08, 2004 at 02:46 UTC ( #351671=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Do not feed the trolls...

I would have liked to claim the title of worst monk, but only if I was able to do it by being myself, as I said in one of the quotes you posted. I wouldn't have even gone out of my way for it. I thought I already had a shot, because of 274711, dated July 16, 2003.

Read my posts in the Boycott O'Reilly thread. I make valid points. There's good and bad to hacking books, and those two sides are never equal. In that thread, others say they're good. I give both sides and my over-all analysis, which is that those books, particularly ones containing cracking code as opposed to crack prevention code, are bad.

Jeffa said "I mean, think about it, who else would be that stubborn and immediately assume that any criticism is simple jealousy?" I believe that most of it isn't jealousy. The students here, and probably many of the seasoned programmers, have learned from schooling and maybe a bit from the real world of programming that certain methods tend to avoid problems. Even I'd be reluctant to hire someone who insisted on coding like I do, though I wouldn't insist on using my usual style if I were working with others or if others had to maintain my code.

My style works for me. It's possible that I'd have benefited from a different style, but that would have required my learning and getting used to something new, just for that chance that it might help. A casual review of today's conventional programming practices led me to believe that they could slow down the development process, at least for a programmer like me who knows what level of carefulness works for him and has had success without scoping and whatnot.

Consider the problems Steve_p had here. I wrote VarStructor in the way I felt was natural and easiest for me, which would have ended up producing errors or warnings the conventional way. I would have had to do it differently and it probably would have taken more time even if I were used to the conventional way.

I hope you will be able to focus on the utility of my module when it comes out, and benefit from it, rather than be bothered by my style. I believe it could help every one of you become more productive programmers. For those of you who don't know the latest, I intend to have VarStructor function kind of like Tie::HashHistory. I've only read about that module, but I believe there will be several differences between it and mine. I expect mine to be easier to use in at least some situations, and faster, but one thing for sure is that mine will be useful.

And when I ask a specific question, you all know how I feel about my style now, so I trust you will focus more on the question and criticize my style a bit less.


Comment on Re: Do not feed the trolls...
Re: Re: Do not feed the trolls...
by Ryszard (Priest) on May 08, 2004 at 06:11 UTC
    There are a few of good elements to creating a successful program, one of them is the usability/functionality, one of them is style.

    If your program is meets the functional requirements, there is still maintaince, and as programmes complexity grows and evolves, the ability to find all the bugs, all the logic flaws becomes harder.

    I learned this in CS-101 in my 1st year of uni.

    Previous to uni i was a self taught programmer who could write programmes that were completely functionally 100% to requirements, and i had the arrogance to ignore comments, tell people what i was doing was the right way.

    I went off to uni, and discovered, after doing an overnighter debugging my pascal telephone billing programme that style was very important.

    Sure style is not so important when your writing throw away stuff, and perhaps not so when you're writing 10 lines, but as the complexity increases, the style in which you programme becomes more important.

    One peice of advice that has stuck in my head from a very smart and much respected uni lecturer of mine was you just cant account for every possibility when programming, you just cant. People will use your code in ways you've never thought of, they will submit data you've never thought of. Again, we're not talking about 10 lines here, we're talking about programmes that are "complex" that interact with other programmes/systems.

    The ability of being able to find bugs and logic flaws is partly a function of how you develop your style.

    Most people programme in the easiest way for them, and its partly true, the functionality of your programme is the ultimate goal, who cares how you get there? Posting code here is an implicit request for review, of which the community is more than willing, infact eager to do. The comments from which, can make it easier/quicker to get there for your next design.

    There are a couple of hundred saints, there are gods, maintainers, and people coming up the ranks to sainthood, each has a different level of experience, each may have something to say that can be reviewed by other peers.

    Dismissing comments out of hand is most of the time not a good way to learn, grow and increase skills.

    Not only do we post comments to help others, we post to be helped ourselves. if i post something that is not quite right, I'm confident that someone will post a followup to explain, correct where i am wrong.

    so I trust you will focus more on the question and criticize my style a bit less.

    Really, people here are not making personal attacks against the author, constructive critisim will be generally backed up by examples, and expln's as to why it could be done better. you wont change that here, you'll just piss people off, and ultimately, you'll get poor responses to your posts..

    Experience here on PM, is partly a function of how peers have reviewed your comments/code, you can only ignore them at your peril. We want to help, if you dont want to be helped, thats fine and no problem, just dont post, read instead.

      Some people ARE making personal attacks against me. People should be answering my questions if they could, not arguing with me about my style when I insist that it's fine. Nobody knows what how well I'm able to deal with my own style but me. Not all programmers are created equal, and nobody even knows how well I structure my larger programs. I have a 3400 line script that works and I could only imagine the "rules" people are suggesting making it more difficult to develop.

      Monks could comment on my style if they want, but to let it go on and on when I say my style works fine, especially for a small, working script that I'm maintaining myself, and to say there's a security problem when there isn't and that it's garbage and I shouldn't parse Perl and it shouldn't be a module when it works and that I should have took extra time scoping stuff instead of simply and quickly using reset is just wrong. These people should get back to the subject or stay out of the thread, and not think there's something wrong with me just because I'm not changing a style that works.

      Here's a somewhat relevant quote that I found while browsing Paul Graham's website:

      "Programs must be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute."

      - Abelson & Sussman, SICP, preface to the first edition

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://351671]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others studying the Monastery: (11)
As of 2014-12-17 22:44 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    Is guessing a good strategy for surviving in the IT business?





    Results (40 votes), past polls