Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
more useful options
 
PerlMonks  

Re: Wassercrats::Improved, Part Deaux

by Wassercrats
on Aug 27, 2004 at 16:05 UTC ( #386413=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Wassercrats::Improved, Part Deaux
in thread Perl::Improved Volume 0, Number 0

Your arrogance is stifling...For instance you posted:

Bonus Critique
Perl's zero-based numbering scheme
The numbering of array indexes and other things in Perl start at 0. This is dumb.

That's the tone Perl::Improved was meant to have. I said I'll be critiquing EVERY function. Do you really think I could find significant problems with EVERY function and that I could give a good enough argument to support fixing all of them? I don't even know what some (maybe most) of the functions do!

Then let's take a look at the Let's Bash O'Reilly node that won you worst node of the year honors. I'm not talking about the original node, specifically, but how many Re: nodes did you write after it? So many that I stopped counting...

I wrote only 11 Re: nodes out of the 78, and people have said I explained myself better in them and only the top post gave them problems, but I'm not surprised about how you feel because I know plenty of people downvoted the Re: posts too. I'm really trying to give people the benefit of the doubt by implying that people really think I make a bad argument or that I'm rude when they downvote me. I could relate to how difficult being optimistic could be.


Comment on Re: Wassercrats::Improved, Part Deaux
Re^2: Wassercrats::Improved, Part Deaux
by hardburn (Abbot) on Aug 27, 2004 at 16:15 UTC

    If you can't come up with a good argument, then don't critique it.

    "There is no shame in being self-taught, only in not trying to learn in the first place." -- Atrus, Myst: The Book of D'ni.

      I was kind of amused by the choice of the word "critique", which doesn't actually mean only negative comments, though it seems to be clear that that's how he meant it. Would it make you happier if he reported "drawbacks" or "caveats"?
        Main Entry: 1cri·tique
        Pronunciation: kr&-'tEk, kri-
        Function: noun
        Etymology: alteration of 2critic
        : an act of criticizing; especially : a critical estimate or discussion

        Main Entry: crit·i·cal
        Pronunciation: 'kri-ti-k&l
        Function: adjective
        ...
        2 a : inclined to criticize severely and unfavorably

Re^2: Wassercrats::Improved, Part Deaux
by herveus (Parson) on Aug 30, 2004 at 15:49 UTC
    Howdy!

    That's not a critique. It's a drive-by snark. A useful critique will actually point out what is right/wrong, ideally with reasoned argument and an understanding of the principles readily apparent.

    All you do is say "this is dumb". That's dumb. Worse than that, its lazy and arrogant. Make that slothful. You don't give the interested reader any information on which to assess your complaint. You lay it out like a cow-pattie in a field. At least the cow-pattie is nascent fertilizer.

    When you actually write a critique, let us know.

    yours,
    Michael

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://386413]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others lurking in the Monastery: (9)
As of 2014-07-23 05:20 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    My favorite superfluous repetitious redundant duplicative phrase is:









    Results (133 votes), past polls