Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Welcome to the Monastery

Re^3: $[ is under respected.

by EvanCarroll (Chaplain)
on Aug 05, 2005 at 06:21 UTC ( #481103=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

in reply to Re^2: $[ is under respected.
in thread $[ is under respected.


I think this is something like the Perl philosophy, not constraining people to follow a particular path. It's nice to know I *could* move the index, if I wanted to - even though I understand that if I ever did that, I'd likely be sorry...
This is the exact point of my mediation. I would up-vote you but a group of assholes, decided to down-vote me to level 1, even after I made such a magnificent contribution.

Evan Carroll

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Welcome to the monastery (Re^4: $[ is under respected.)
by jarich (Curate) on Aug 05, 2005 at 08:25 UTC

    G'day Evan and welcome to the monastery,

    I realise you've been here for a couple of weeks now and I hope that the majority of your experiences have been good ones and that the majority of your experiences in the future will also be good.

    Thankyou for contributing your thoughts on $[. Your meditation was interesting, although I found it a little confusing, and in itself does not deserve to be voted down. (In my opinion, of course).

    Which brings me to voting on this site. The higher a level monk you get to be on this site, the more votes you get per day. Yet you never get enough to vote on every node and response written for that day.

    Some monks reserve their votes for upvoting truely praise-worthy nodes and downvoting notes they feel ought to be removed due to bad language or other unsuitability. Other monks use their votes for indicating agreement and disagreement. It is very rare that people vote based on personal feelings towards the author (rather than the content).

    I'm sorry that you lost enough experience to end up at level 1 again. However I assure you that it was not because any group of people colluded against you and decided to rob you of xp. Instead, you made a suggestion that most people disagreed with. Rather than repeating what others had already said to you, some individual readers downvoted your notes to indicate their disagreement.

    I was one of these individual readers. I disagreed strongly with the suggestion of teaching newbie programmers how to use $[ to save them learning about standard array indexing. So I downvoted that node. Who it was written by didn't cross my mind. Had Ovid, tilly, merlyn, pjf or TheDamian (all monks I hold a lot of respect for) written those exact same words I would have still have downvoted.

    Perhaps I should have responded to say why I thought that was a bad idea.

    So welcome to the monastery. We're a rather rowdy bunch. We have some of the world's best Perl programmers and we might even have a few of the worst. We've got centuries of programming experience between us and we've already fought out the battles which told us that $[ was mostly a stupid idea, use strict belongs in most code, and that we shouldn't each write our own CGI parameter passing code unless we're replacing

    You'll probably find us a little difficult if you want to challenge the commonly accepted wisdom, because it's commonly accepted for good reasons.

    But pull up a piece of couch and relax. I'm happy you've joined us and I hope you'll stick around and both learn from us and teach us new ideas.

    All the very best,


    20050805 Edit by ysth: change title from "Welcome to the monastery"

Re^4: $[ is under respected.
by 5mi11er (Deacon) on Aug 05, 2005 at 15:21 UTC
    First off, I'd like to say I agree wholeheartedly with everything jarich said above; welcome to the Monestary, I hope you stick around. This is the main reason I'm replying.

    I'm also being compelled to say that I really don't understand what you meant when you said "This is the exact point of my mediation." Spiritway understands that messing with $[ is dangerous and not to be trifled with. The majority of your meditation, as I understand it, attempts to argue that $[ is something that, as a community, we should accept the use of and possibly even encourage people to mess with.

    If you want to play with it, understand it, find some cool obfuscations, or even find an interesting (non-production) use for it, fine; we all encourage expeditions into deeper understanding.

    But, the ability to mess with $[ should now be considered to be a failed experiment, just like pseudohashes. There were reasons that they were tried, but over time they've been found to cause more problems than they are worth. That is the important thing to understand; a group of intelligent, thoughtful people are not going to arbitrarily turn their back on anything that proves to be worthwhile. Messing with $[ isn't worthwhile. Strong arguments attempting to say they are, will always result in -- votes.

    I realize simply posting this further extends the life and add to the possibility that this thread will continue, when it really should just die. I understand losing XP hurts, sorry, take the lumps, eventually you'll learn from them. I don't need an answer, don't really want an answer; if you feel you must give one, send it as a /msg to me. Otherwise, you're likely to lose more XP.


Log In?

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://481103]
and all is quiet...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others examining the Monastery: (4)
As of 2018-04-26 02:35 GMT
Find Nodes?
    Voting Booth?