Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
The stupid question is the question not asked
 
PerlMonks  

Re^5: defining methods on the fly

by Anonymous Monk
on Aug 03, 2006 at 20:14 UTC ( [id://565543]=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^4: defining methods on the fly
in thread defining methods on the fly

This node falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^6: defining methods on the fly
by revdiablo (Prior) on Aug 03, 2006 at 21:09 UTC
    Programming should be a rote job; it's just the act of documenting a known solution to a known problem

    Your post is very long, and I hate to sum it all up with such a tiny quote, but I think the portion I quoted is close to the crux of the disagreement here. Your programming experience is evidently all business all the time. Not every programmer lives in that world. Some people really are solving interesting problems, with the computer being just one tool in the problem solving chain. And as a word of notice, your apparent (and almost hyperbolic) failure to recognize that will put you at odds with a large portion of the Perl Monks population. I wish you the best of luck, but be prepared to write a lot of very long posts with excessive use of bold.

    A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.
Re^6: defining methods on the fly
by Anonymous Monk on Aug 03, 2006 at 20:46 UTC
    Programming should be a rote job; it's just the act of documenting a known solution to a known problem.

    A good programmer only solve the problem once. A good programmer eliminates as much of the rote as possible.

    It comes back to that flexibility your so afraid of. I suppose if you don't understand flexible code, its much more comforting to just pound out the same solution over and over again...

    A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.
Re^6: defining methods on the fly
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Aug 03, 2006 at 21:18 UTC

    I spent the last 6 years NOT working, and living off the ample proceeds of my skill, dedication and innovations of the previous twenty-five as a programmer and analyst.

    In that time I encountered several lower and middle managers who expressed similar views to those you've just expressed. I even had the misfortune to work under one for a short time, though I mostly managed to avoid that situation by weeding them out at the interview stage. S'funny how they all thought that they were interviewing me.

    In every case they were failed programmers who had had been moved sideways into management to get them out of the way. A common, but ultimately destructive practice in corporations with old-style, job-for-life terms of employement dating from circa 1975. Sidelined, and on the long slide into a career cul-de-sac, their embittered "professionalism" slowly takes it's tole upon all who work under them, and the teams and departments they run.

    Enjoy your trip. It'll be a short one.


    Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
    Lingua non convalesco, consenesco et abolesco. -- Rule 1 has a caveat! -- Who broke the cabal?
    "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
    In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
    A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Domain Nodelet?
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://565543]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this?Last hourOther CB clients
Other Users?
Others meditating upon the Monastery: (1)
As of 2024-03-19 03:50 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    No recent polls found