Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Don't ask to ask, just ask

Re^2: A proposal: new section on Perl Monks.

by Win (Novice)
on Feb 27, 2006 at 13:02 UTC ( #533008=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

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

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.
  • Comment on Re^2: A proposal: new section on Perl Monks.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: A proposal: new section on Perl Monks.
by merlyn (Sage) on Feb 27, 2006 at 13:48 UTC
    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 again, since you didn't answer my question...

        What problem are you currently facing that having an agreed-upon name for some code (as if that could happen) would solve it?

        I just don't get it. I've never stood around and said to myself "if only I could describe this code..." or even more unlikely, been with another Perl coder staring at code saying "if only we could describe this code...".

        It's just not a problem for us. In what way is it a problem for you, and what assistance are you actually asking for? And what would you do with the response?

        In fact, give it a try. Post some code to SOPW, and say "I need help to describe this code". Watch for all the puzzled responses.

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

Re^3: A proposal: new section on Perl Monks.
by moklevat (Priest) on Feb 28, 2006 at 04:22 UTC
    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.

Log In?

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://533008]
and all is quiet...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others having an uproarious good time at the Monastery: (5)
As of 2017-02-26 22:41 GMT
Find Nodes?
    Voting Booth?
    Before electricity was invented, what was the Electric Eel called?

    Results (376 votes). Check out past polls.