Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Keep It Simple, Stupid

Re^2: Learning/Using Perl on Linux

by Anonymous Monk
on Mar 01, 2005 at 16:19 UTC ( #435507=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

in reply to Re: Learning/Using Perl on Linux
in thread Learning/Using Perl on Linux

As another monk and English speaker, I'm ashamed to be associated with you.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Learning/Using Perl on Linux
by samizdat (Vicar) on Mar 01, 2005 at 19:33 UTC
    I agree with holli that your post should have identified yourself, as it had no content except a gratuitous sneer. holli is a *very* helpful monk, and I thought her response was as gentle or gentler than my own. I think she's absolutely right that the OP was lazy in the way that he/she wrote the post, and I think it is perfectly legitimate to request some measure of readability from posts on a forum devoted to programming in a very syntactically complex language.

    I deal with non-US programmers in all kinds of contexts, and it is a point of respect for my non-English-primary friends to make their messages as correct as they can. This post did not show that effort, so we both requested it.
Re^3: Learning/Using Perl on Linux
by holli (Monsignor) on Mar 01, 2005 at 16:23 UTC
    So why donīt you login and tell us who you are?

    holli, /regexed monk/

      It's kind of funny. I didn't mind your first reply (criticising the OP for his terribly written mess) yet this one (criticising the AnonyMonk for being Anonymous) bothers me. Based on those nodes' reputations, it seems my opinion is contrary to that of most other Monks', so I feel like I should explain my thoughts a bit.

      Writing badly is a real problem, because it impedes communication. Now -- without getting into debates about splitting infinitives and other arcana -- we can all agree that the original post was very badly written. It shows no effort at all, or even the pretense of caring. I think this is a bad way to go about asking a question, and as such I think it is worthy of criticism.

      On the other hand, being Anonymous is not a problem. Many users have legitimate reasons for not revealing their identity (I'm sure tilly can tell you all about this), but that shouldn't make them worthy of criticism. To do that would risk driving them away. I have seen many excellent contributions to the Monastery from quite a few Anonymous Monks, and to lose that contribution would be a shame.

        I donīt have a problem with Anonymous Monks, when the posts are about technical questions. I knew my node was likely to get negative rep (maybe this one also), and it would have been easy for me to logout and post it anonymously. But expressing opinions, especially controverse ones, should be made under ones own name. Posting anonymous to avoid loss of a few xp is a form of cowardness.

        holli, /regexed monk/

Log In?

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://435507]
[Corion]: Oh yay. The (external, not guided by me) programmers have chosen Moose+DBIx::Class for some implementation, and now seem to do 1+n SELECT statements for each row, as is usual when using ORMs.
[Corion]: So maybe I should investigate how to plug in a cache in front of DBIx::Class so I can do a ->selectall_hashre f and then satisfy the "sub"-selects from that cached single SELECT statement ...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others wandering the Monastery: (7)
As of 2017-09-25 10:59 GMT
Find Nodes?
    Voting Booth?
    During the recent solar eclipse, I:

    Results (279 votes). Check out past polls.