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

Re^5: RFC: Review of "Seekers of Perl Wisdom" descrition?

by BrowserUk (Pope)
on Apr 08, 2012 at 23:50 UTC ( #964044=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^4: RFC: Review of "Seekers of Perl Wisdom" descrition?
in thread RFC: Review of "Seekers of Perl Wisdom" description?

On the other hand if entering the post subject into Google returns the answer as one of the first three links,

Let's see what happens when I enter the OPs title into google:

  1. Javascript and Ajax
  2. The OPs post here
  3. PHP
  4. PHP
  5. Internet Explorer
  6. PHP
  7. PHP
  8. Wordpress
  9. C#
  10. PHP
  11. iPhone Dev
  12. ASP or Javascript
  13. WebOS/Javascript
  14. IE/C#
  15. PHP
  16. PHP
  17. VB
  18. Javascript
  19. Ajax/Javascript

With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
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.

The start of some sanity?


Comment on Re^5: RFC: Review of "Seekers of Perl Wisdom" descrition?
Re^6: RFC: Review of "Seekers of Perl Wisdom" descrition?
by Jenda (Abbot) on Apr 09, 2012 at 00:55 UTC

    Right. So you have to tell the search engine that you are looking for answers related to Perl. Huge deal. If OP can't think of that, OP should not be attempting to program. LMGTFY

    Jenda
    Enoch was right!
    Enjoy the last years of Rome.

      So, you know what keywords to add and which ones to omit so that the search engine turns up what you already know you are looking for.

      Were you always so wise? Did you come out of the womb knowing that?

      Never once in your past did you ever have trouble finding something, that you now look back on as trivial?

      OP should not be attempting to program.

      If the OP doesn't know what you know, they shouldn't even bother starting trying to program.


      With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
      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.

      The start of some sanity?

        In some cases you are right. You need to know the right keyword to find the answer. In this case entering a plain old English sentence "How do I check whether an image exists in Perl?" into Google would be enough. The very first link leads to "Perl file exists tutorial - How to tell if a file exists in Perl using file test". Sure, you have to tell google you are not interested in answers related to PHP, C#, Java, Visual Basic, Pascal, C, C++, Brainfuck, ...

        And no, it's not about what they know or do not know. What's important is whether they are wiling to invest at least a bit of their own effort into solving their own problems. It's one thing to come with "Hey dudes, how do I check if an image exists" (cause I did not bother trying to look up anything) and another to come with "OK, guys, I have code like this and the file test operator doesn't seem to work. I'm testing the existence of an image before I include it in generated HTML and the test always returns false.". The second case is perfectly fine, there are several possible causes of the problem, not all of them entirely obvious, some of them operating system/web server dependent (the current working directory is not the same in all webservers!) and I'm sure all monks will be happy to help.

        The OP explained what he needs clearly and formatted his post so I do think he deserved help, he's not really a member of the "gimme cookie" group. On the other hand "you can find the answer like this" is help in my book and not only does it help with this particular question, but it also encourages the posted to google for answers next time. Which not only frees monks to answer more complicated questions, but also (from the OP's point of view more importantly) tends to be quicker.

        RTFM or LMGTFY response, if accompanied with information about what section of what FM to read or what to ask Google, is in my not so humble opinion absolutely fine and if someone feels hurt by such a response, he/she should grow a thicker skin.

        Jenda
        Enoch was right!
        Enjoy the last years of Rome.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://964044]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others exploiting the Monastery: (8)
As of 2014-10-25 18:40 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    For retirement, I am banking on:










    Results (147 votes), past polls