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

Re^2: The Emperor's New Clothes

by papidave (Monk)
on Jan 16, 2009 at 15:46 UTC ( #736853=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re: The Emperor's New Clothes
in thread The Emperor's New Clothes

Perhaps, BrowserUK, but I can see nothing there. Unless, of course, I don't exist either.

... which reminds me, it's far more interesting to consider the challenge of proving whether or not I exist. Invoking Descartes only works on $self, and I'm not exposing that method, so you can't use it in your proof.


Comment on Re^2: The Emperor's New Clothes
Download Code
Re^3: The Emperor's New Clothes
by BrowserUk (Pope) on Jan 18, 2009 at 12:57 UTC
    BrowserUk: Foolish or not. No, I cannot see it! ...

    popidave: Perhaps, BrowserUK, but I can see nothing there. ...

    Doesn't that mean we are in agreement?

    My point FWIW, is that in the original story, the Emperor walked around naked because he was scared to challenge the "new technologist" tailor's claims about his revolutionary new material. And the courtiers were too scared to go against the Emperor's opinion. It's a funny story and kids (of a certain age) love it. The idea of the Emperor walking around naked has them in stitches. But the story has a very relevant serious side.

    The same trick is being performed all around us, all the time. Listen closly to adverts--cosmetic ads are some of the best examples currently. Listen to all the technobable they use--"ceramides"; "aquacurrent science"; "cellular level cleansing"; "biomolecular"; "microtechnology bioactive"; "pro-collagen"; "microsmoothing"; "bio-stimulating"; "microlift".

    And over the last 30 years, I've seen the same thing over and over in our industry. Promise after promise that the latest silver-bullet, techno-speak, "new paradigm" is going to revolutionise our industry and fix all its ills.

    OO has certain obvious and demonstrable benefits--but there are those that would have you not just buy in to OO for those parts of your code that lend themselves to it; but for all your code. So, you can no longer use a global variable for inherently global entities--you have to wrap them over in a "singleton pattern", and complicate your code 10 fold in the process.

    The functional crowd will convince of the benefits of side-effect free functions--of which there are many. But will then go on to try and convince you that all code should be side-effects free--even when the primary, and often only, purpose is to effect a side-effect. Think IO.

    Sometimes the only sensible thing to do, is to call upon the proponents of a counterintuative notion, to prove their position.


    Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
    "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
    In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
      even when the primary, and often only, purpose is to effect a side-effect.

      Yes. From the docs (perlsyn):

      The only kind of simple statement is an expression evaluated for its side effects.

      So true. Take "Hello, world!". The computed effect (1 upon success) is dropped, an to have that silly greeting on the terminal - is the side-effect.

      I am here as and for my side-effects...

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://736853]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others romping around the Monastery: (6)
As of 2014-09-20 10:15 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    How do you remember the number of days in each month?











    Results (158 votes), past polls