Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Perl: the Markov chain saw

Re^4: A proposal: new section on Perl Monks.

by Win (Novice)
on Feb 27, 2006 at 14:10 UTC ( #533023=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??

in reply to Re^3: A proposal: new section on Perl Monks.
in thread A proposal: new section on Perl Monks.

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.

Comment on Re^4: A proposal: new section on Perl Monks.
Re^5: A proposal: new section on Perl Monks.
by merlyn (Sage) on Feb 27, 2006 at 14:28 UTC
    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.

      ...having an agreed-upon name for some code

      Somehow, you've gotten hung up on the notion that he is talking about naming code. Please read what he wrote again. (Or for the first time, as the case may be.) He's been very clear, he's not talking about naming code. He's talking about explaining code, in plain English.

      We're building the house of the future together.
      This idea that I have asked to have a Perl Monks section that names code (which clearly I didnít) highlights for me the reductionist mentality that top programmers have. I believe that it was because of this reductionist mentality that it was assumed that this is what I would be asking for. Asking for code to be named is the ultimate in reductionism. Reducing code is clearly what they enjoy and is clearly what they are good at doing. This is why I ask for this proposed section to be considered. Not everybody that could benefit from using Perl in his or her work thinks in this reductionist way. But they do jobs where light-programming tasks could save them a lot of time. Please could the people that run this site think about this point carefully.

Log In?

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://533023]
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others pondering the Monastery: (14)
As of 2014-08-01 14:47 GMT
Find Nodes?
    Voting Booth?

    Who would be the most fun to work for?

    Results (25 votes), past polls