This is a call to the fans of "Perl 6" to please go start your own monastery, or website, at least, and stop cluttering up these halls with posts about your new pastime.
Yes, I know I am free to choose whether to read or not to read whatever article I don't like. But it's not about how I, or any established programmer, feels about "Perl 6" (not even about how it is likely to shrink further the limited opportunities to earn a living practicing a craft I've spent half a lifetime improving).
The problem I have with allowing these "Perl 6" promos here is that it creates confusion for novice programmers who come to the monastery hoping to learn how to program in Perl, and fills their path to knowledge with obstacles, red herrings and irrelevancies.
This is, of course, the most unfortunate thing about "Perl 6" the hobby -- that people who don't know better conflate it with Perl, the working and wildly successful programming language. While there's not much we can do about that overall, we can certainly avoid exacerbating the problem by publishing "Perl News" and "Meditations" about Perl's 'mortal enemy,' as DAGolden recently judged it.
To the "Perl 6" fans I say: stand on your own two feet and quit using the established culture of Perl, and this monastery, to try to popularize your hobby and land-grab your piece of the upcoming "Perl 6" gold rush (*cough*).
Among the defining characteristics of a successful and long-lasting monastic order -- even a liberal one, even one dedicated to the social good -- are cohesiveness and unity of purpose. A house divided against itself cannot stand, as a wise man once said. It's fine for a small band of dissatisfied brethren to go off and develop a new denomination: knock yourselves out, but please don't forget the first half of that process!
The way forward always starts with a minimal test.
I was curious about my progress in the XP game, and found it hard to visualize so I made this little script to produce a report on "XP Efficiency."
It attempts to produce a ranking of Saints by comparing XP to either number of posts made, or to how long the Saint has been a Monk.
I made a couple of efforts at making the data more relevant. For example, I exclude anyone who hasn't been active for a certain time, and anyone who has not made a minimum number of posts. This eliminates the Monks who have accumulated thousands of points but are not here in the community these days, as well as those who do come by regularly but have never posted anything.
I also try to get at meaningful data by deducting half a point for each day as a Monk, since I'm most interested in XP efficiency based on real contributions to the Monastery, i.e. XP for upvotes and for votes cast, not for votes accumulated through simple longevity. (Of course it is impossible to properly account for all factors, e.g. the fact that there were far fewer Monks in the early days, so posts had fewer potential upvotes they could earn.) Would like to hear any suggestions on how to improve this "normalization" of the data. Mostly though the results appear to be in line with what I would have expected so I don't think it's too far off. Deducting a point per day seems to make a small difference, and only for XP/posts.
It's just for fun, but it helps motivate me to excel as a teacher and as a student. You can run the script and force it to include you in the rankings even if you don't make the top 20 (or whatever you limit the search to), so you can see your progress at a glance.
$ perl XP_efficiency.pl
Usage: perl XP_efficiency.pl --sort_by (age|posts)
--sort_by, -s: Rank monks by XP/posts or by XP/age
--limit, -l: Limit results to this many
--order, -o: Sort order (asc|desc)
--recent, -r: Limit to monks seen in the last n wee
--only_include, -i: Skip all monks except this/these one(
--force_include, -f: Include this/these monk(s) even if -l
+ is set
--min_posts, -m: Exclude monks with fewer than this ma
--no_adjust, -n: Don't deduct 0.5 XP for each day of m
--help, -h: Print this help
edit: reduce XP by only 0.5 per day; switched to Time::Piece as DateTime::Format::Strptime has compile problems on Strawberry Perl; switched to format_number() because round() does not provide trailing zeroes; increase XP/Age by two more orders of magnitude, for scale
The way forward always starts with a minimal test.
When initially considering a node, the process is: enter consideration text; select checkbox; hit [moderate] button.
Now the Approval Nodelet displays the consideration text; however, the keep/edit/reap/nada radiobuttons are not shown. In order to see the radiobuttons, a page refresh is required: at which point, both consideration text and radiobuttons are displayed (as you'd normally see when landing on a page that has already been considered).
So, the enhancement suggestion is for both consideration text and radiobuttons to be displayed after hitting the [moderate] button.
Like everyone, my mind and attention are all over the map, but over the years I see people using the CB (ChatterBox) like a chat application.
Do you just follow along as-is, or are there tricks to provide notify-send type pop-ups or something that just makes it easier? When I've spoken and have interest, I open a new browser tab to Enhanced Full Page CB
The CB has a wealth of good content, hilarity and just something I'd like to see outside of the webpage itself.
Has there been any past discussion on adding a Shadow Title to each post as part of the consideration process? Regardless of the posting guidelines, I see many posts where the title has no relation to the question. Comments?
There's never enough time to do it right, but always enough time to do it over...
I was just going through Nodes to consider, selected "reap" (for a node that was considered for reaping), hit submit and this was displayed:
You said "I've reaped your node [id://1149099]. Reason: [[stevieb]]: reap: homework question; no perl content " to johnrock47
I've gone to some effort to recreate the message verbatim: that's exactly what was displayed.
I have two points regarding this:
Whatever code that generates the [[stevieb]] part, was probably intended to generate a link to the monk who initially posted the consideration, (in this case stevieb).
While I was one of the monks who considered this for reaping (and I don't really have any problem being identified as such), I didn't actually reap the node. Perhaps the message should, more accurately, identify NodeReaper as the one doing the reaping.
Whatever code that generates the [id://1149099] part, was probably intended to generate a link also.
I don't recall seeing a message like that before, so I'm guessing it's new.
I can't see anything in Tidings about it.
It's potentially related to the experimental change (Reaped Nodes ...Aug 11, 2015 at 04:00 EST), but that's really just a guess.
This surprises me. On many occasions I’ve seen a Consideration requesting that an approved node be transferred to another section, so I assumed that a node, once approved, couldn’t be transferred via the “Move to:” option in the Approval Nodelet. Was I wrong?
I’m also surprised that moving a node should cancel its approval. Is this a bug, or is it the expected behaviour?