|P is for Practical|
Re^4: scope in extreme programming (no flame)by tye (Sage)
|on Jun 22, 2007 at 15:38 UTC||Need Help??|
To be clear, I didn't say you flamed, because I didn't think you flamed. Of course the root node didn't contain any discussion. It asked a question and discussion results from that. The root node did a poor job of asking what I find an interesting question that is relevant to Perl programmers. Your node did a poor job of asking a question that wasn't the least bit interesting and isn't relevant to Perl programming. So while the root node is of pretty darn poor quality, you managed to produce an even worse node, IMO.
I really wish that more monks would reply to the nodes where they have something worth saying. For example, if one doesn't understand the question, then at least wait a while before proclaiming your inability to understand to the world. In most cases, someone will come along who does understand the question and perhaps can produce some interesting discussion.
So, every once in a while I register my protest against replies that have nothing at all Perl related to offer because they aren't doing anything but criticizing a node. And it was easy to do in this case because I found your trivial, no-effort critique to have even missed the mark.
And even if no interesting discussion results, I'd rather see only replies that at least go beyond criticizing the quality of the question. I don't mind people giving pointers at how to better formulate the question, so long as the reply also contains something besides that. If you want to poke the author because you think that they were off-topic (which, to be clear, is an assessment I disagree with in this specific case), then at least indulge in doing so only if you can add something interesting to the conversation that is somewhat on-topic or at least wait for others to have some more inspired comment that also makes that point for you.
Had the original poster just left in one more word, the question would have been much better. I'd enjoy seeing some discussion about "scope reduction", which seems quite clear to me is the main point of this question. I realize that many people won't see that easily, though. And, no, even that question doesn't contain the word "Perl". But your question contained the word "Perl" and was much more off-topic (and pointless). This site often does a great job of taking a poor question and turning it into a quality discussion, and almost always one that heavily touches on Perl programming.
And I doubt a discussion of "scope reduction and extreme programming" would get very Perl-specific, but it'd still likely be interesting and useful to Perl programmers and so would be on-topic for PerlMonks and worth having here. General programming questions are some of the most interesting questions we get.
I realize that it takes a small amount of sophistication to go beyond a knee-jerk "and your Perl question is?" mindset when figuring out what is on-topic at PerlMonks. Interesting topics that are very appropriate at PerlMonks can sometimes never mention the word "Perl".