Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
good chemistry is complicated,
and a little bit messy -LW
 
PerlMonks  

Re: A proposal: new section on Perl Monks.

by Corion (Pope)
on Feb 27, 2006 at 12:56 UTC ( #533006=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to A proposal: new section on Perl Monks.

We already have such a section. It's called Seekers of Perl Wisdom. But even if we added another comparable section with more focus on explaining code, what use would it be? You wouldn't read it anyway.


Comment on Re: A proposal: new section on Perl Monks.
Re^2: A proposal: new section on Perl Monks.
by Win (Novice) on Feb 27, 2006 at 13:02 UTC
    The point of this section would be to offer snippets of code in isolation and to offer snippets of code that work. The discussion would not be about the Perl code; the discussion would be about what is the best way of describing the code. i.e. the focus would be on the English rather than the Perl.
      I'm a pretty avid Perl programmer. I have probably coded in Perl for longer than all but a handful of people that show up here, and been in a lot of situations where it might seem like what you're asking for would have arisen.

      But guess what? We don't stand around and do that. The code just does the thing. We don't stand around trying to name it.

      So, I'm guessing that if you create your proposed section, a frequent Perl coder like me would simply be mystified, because it's an activity that I don't find myself engaging in, or even contemplating.

      What problem are you trying to solve by learning how to better describe the code?

      Nobody "discussed" the name of the Schwartzian Transform. Tom named it, and it stuck. Nobody "discussed" the name of "inside-out objects". It got named, and it stuck.

      What exactly do you see as the process in your proposed section?

      -- Randal L. Schwartz, Perl hacker
      Be sure to read my standard disclaimer if this is a reply.

        The section would not be asking for code to be named. The code would be described using the most basic English possible in the most concise way possible, without loss of meaning. Maybe code could be described in different ways ... and the submission page would offer a section for each way. For example, outline (for beginners), intermediate, detailed description (for advanced people). You could have a submission box for the code and, in this case, three submission boxes for the descriptions (for the three levels) of which the submitter would be required to fill in at least one. Replies would be offered a definition submission box and a seperate comment box.
      So, you want something like Perl Idioms Explained for larger snippets of guaranteed-to-be-functional code? This sounds a lot like a Perl-English dictionary. Naturally, because TIMTOWTDI a Perl Thesaurus (Perlsaurus?) might be needed as well.
Re^2: A proposal: new section on Perl Monks.
by bart (Canon) on Feb 27, 2006 at 13:19 UTC
    I don't think you get what Win means... I'm not sure I do. But get the impression it should be a cross between FAQs AKA Q&A, and the series of "Perl Idioms" in Meditations. I'm not convinced it truely deserves a new section, but my feeling tells me SoPW is not the best place.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://533006]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others chilling in the Monastery: (5)
As of 2014-09-01 18:54 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    My favorite cookbook is:










    Results (15 votes), past polls