Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Syntactic Confectionery Delight
 
PerlMonks  

Re: Return Merlyn's Name to Programming Perl

by footpad (Monsignor)
on May 08, 2002 at 03:49 UTC ( #164901=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Return Merlyn's Name to Programming Perl

Um, wouldn't these thoughts be better addressed, um, to someone potentially in a position to do something about it?

Besides, this was discussed almost two years ago. (I originally provided a link to the thread but have since unlinked it. After all, what's done is done.) Please don't get me wrong. Merlyn (and any other person involved in the process) should receive fair credit and/or compensation. The thread I didn't link to showed a number of things, including the discomfort several felt about discussing the particulars in such a public forum. While I realize you're not addressing precisely the same issue as that other discussion, I personally wonder if the two aren't more than a little related.

In any event, Camel3 has been put to bed. While changes in attribution might be made in a later edition, that seems highly unlikely. Indeed, a far wiser course of action might be to first find out if the monk in question still has issues with that and, if so, then see what (if anything) he thinks would be an appropriate response at this point in time. (Hint: there is a new version of Perl coming out RSN.)

Would it not be better to focus on trying to affect the future instead of rehashing the mistakes of the past--especially when there may be more to the story than what's been discussed publically?

--f


Comment on Re: Return Merlyn's Name to Programming Perl
Re: Re: Return Merlyn's Name to Programming Perl
by ignatz (Vicar) on May 08, 2002 at 11:18 UTC
    Where better to talk about this than here? I feel something that's been bugging me for a while that's very much Perl related, so I post it. It seems to me that it's rather hard to meditate about anything in Perl that hasn't been rehashed somewhere or another.

    I can only assume that Merlyn still has issues with the subject, or else he wouldn't refer to it on his homepage in such a bitter fashion. I could care less about the particulars of why. What is wrong is wrong. I cannot think of a reason to justify treating an author in such an orwellian fashion.

    Right now I'm sitting next to a book shelf crammed with 36 volumns of O'Reilly books. Another ten are waiting for me at my desk at work. I have always been a true lover of their work. (Except for ASP in a Nutshell and that MySql & mSQL edition. Bleach:-P) Still, Perl is not a trademark of O'Reilly and Associates. When one of the native sons of that community is treated in an unjust fashion by a company, shouldn't another member of that community voice his indignation if he feels it?

    As far as I'm concerned as long as O'Reilly continues to not give him credit for his work people should be reminded of their actions.

    Thank you for your perspective. I truly appreciate it.

    ()-()
     \"/
      `                                                     
    
Re: Re: Return Merlyn's Name to Programming Perl
by theorbtwo (Prior) on May 08, 2002 at 18:36 UTC

    And there's a new camel to come with it. Which I suspect that Merlyn, the great and wize, will have a hand in writing, and a name on the cover. Not that I have any inside information. Of course not.


    We are using here a powerful strategy of synthesis: wishful thinking. -- The Wizard Book

      Fourth edition camel covering perl5? Do tell. I figured it wouldn't come out until perl6 arrived... Is there a rumored release date?

      -Blake

        That would be nice. I figure they've got I more 5 edition in them before the revolution begins.
        ()-()
         \"/
          `                                                     
        

        No, camel4 for perl6. Or that's what I couldn't tell you, had I heard somehow.


        We are using here a powerful strategy of synthesis: wishful thinking. -- The Wizard Book

Re: Re: Return Merlyn's Name to Programming Perl
by Hanamaki (Chaplain) on May 09, 2002 at 18:09 UTC
    Would it not be better to focus on trying to affect the future instead of rehashing the mistakes of the past--especially when there may be more to the story than what's been discussed publically?

    One of the strength of Perl is its Community. Listening to Perlgurus et al. words like "Culture", "History", "Community" etc. could be called keywords for our Culture.
    So recording our History -- recording strange things of the past -- is a part of Community building as well. Fortunately there is no PERL PEOPLE MAGAZINE and no THE PERL SUN writing articles like "Tom vs. Randal", but we have to face it, some people are a important part of Perl Culture and the Perl Community. Ergo this people are public persons like actors, politicians etc. Wether they or we like it or not. If you ask for community you get community.
    Of course we could use the Orwellian/Norh Korean model of history writing, but I'd prefer a more honest discourse showing the ugly sides as well.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://164901]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others avoiding work at the Monastery: (22)
As of 2014-07-29 15:15 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    My favorite superfluous repetitious redundant duplicative phrase is:









    Results (219 votes), past polls