Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Do you know where your variables are?
 
PerlMonks  

A Judas Among Us?

by tedv (Pilgrim)
on Dec 02, 2000 at 04:44 UTC ( #44525=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Chapter 714: The Long Chapter

You seem to imply that Princepawn's relentless discourses have an important harrowing effect, by constantly forcing us to reevaluate our position. The implication is that he's a Judas figure-- someone who does something despicable that is nontheless necessary.

For another Biblical example, consider the story of David and Bathsheba. If you don't know the story, King David of Israel has an affair with another man's wife, gets her pregnant, indirectly murders her husband, and then marries her. A prophet brings this fact to life and tells him God will judge him for these things, by taking away David's wife, killing the child, and plaguing him with war. It also turns that Solomon, David's successor and son, was a child of Bathsheba. Clearly God did not approve of David's actions, and still used the results to good ends.

The moral is that good things can still come from the actions of Judas figures, not that Judas figures are necessary for good things to occur.

-Ted


Comment on A Judas Among Us?
Re: A Judas Among Us?
by neshura (Chaplain) on Dec 05, 2000 at 00:54 UTC

    You seem to imply that Princepawn's relentless discourses have an important harrowing effect, by constantly forcing us to reevaluate our position.

    Yes.

    The implication is that he's a Judas figure-- someone who does something despicable that is nontheless {sic} necessary.

    Absolutely not. To my knowledge, Perl Monks has zero need for despicable yet necessary actions. You may find princepawn personally despicable, but I would be aghast if you or anyone else found it despicable that he persistently questions such things as inconsistencies in a language that is undeniably imperfect. Let me rephrase that actually -- I have been aghast.

    My original point, as you stated very succinctly in the first sentence, was that much of what princepawn has written has been valuable and necessary, because languages (and for different reasons, communities) ought to be kept on the defensive. Any offensive comments against individuals are a different matter entirely, and I have no problem whatsoever with verbal condemnation of monks who personally attack other monks (or classes of monks).

    I understand the moral lesson behind the two Bible stories you presented, but I don't think they apply very well in this case, because it is not necessary for one to be morally bankrupt or personally distasteful in order to bring criticism to bear.

    Update: Good point below by KM. But frankly, I would have no problem going to a mousetrap community and suggesting a better one. Use of a hammer analogy instead of a mousetrap analogy implies that Perl is a fully evolved tool. This I cannot agree with.

    e-mail neshura

      My original point, as you stated very succinctly in the first sentence, was that much of what princepawn has written has been valuable and necessary, because languages (and for different reasons, communities) ought to be kept on the defensive.

      Why? I mean, maybe at a corporate level, but why here? Why do you have to come to a community of Perl people to then defend Perl? Perl is a tool. Not a religion, not a politcal faction, not a moral, not a lifestyle (except that some of us make a living doing it). Why would/should I need to defend why a hammer is good for hammering, versus a wrench which is good for tightening? I shouldn't, and don't expect to go to hammers.com, join a community of hammer lovers/users and defend the hammer. So, I do disagree here.

      Perl is a tool. It isn't the be-all-end-all. If someone doesn't like it, they can use another tool.

      I have kept out of the whole princepawn thing until now. Personally, I don't care that he is gone. Most of his nodes, IMO, were a waste. But hey, that's me. I think it was moronic for him to use a second userid to trick us, and to carry on two personas. But, those are my feelings on that, in a nutshell.

      PerlMonks has continued to evolve, and will continue to. It has become a good resource, and a fun place. For the most part, it seems that the concensus of the people here create unwritten rules, and people tend to abide by them. Spats happen, as they will, and people will leave. We just have to keep truckin along, be ourselves, and share our knowledge of Perl.

      Cheers,
      KM

      My original point, as you stated very succinctly in the first sentence, was that much of what princepawn has written has been valuable and necessary, because languages (and for different reasons, communities) ought to be kept on the defensive. Any offensive comments against individuals are a different matter entirely, and I have no problem whatsoever with verbal condemnation of monks who personally attack other monks (or classes of monks).

      I agree completely, except that I think princepawn did a poor job in the role of the Questioner. He attacked over agressively and without enough thought. The result was, then when he actually DID uncover an error, it almost went unnoticed. I did some experimenting and formulated the error into defined terms, and tye went through the code to uncover it. Dominus reported the error to p5p, and it will be fixed in 5.6.1. All good, right?

      Sure, except that it almost didn't happen. Princepawn has become the boy who cried wolf.

      I agree that we need to be questioned if we're going to improve, but there are valuable attacks, and there are random attacks.

      neshura: I understand why you would not necessarily approve of the post I made in response to princepawn's post. But I did not do that to attack him. I did that to question his behavior. Personally, I have sent messages to princepawn apologizing for "jumping the gun" in judgment. I have also apologized for my role in this entire affair. I'm not happy that I added fuel to the fire. But let's step back and see how princepawn views this:
      the very first part of the attack I launched on the discrepancy between ...
      He made the above comment in this post. Even princepawn seems to view some of his own comments as "attacks."

      He has cried wolf many times. He didn't do this deliberately, but at times he failed to read the documentation and other times the code he used to illustrate a point had bugs. The point that many tried to impress upon him was that he should be more rigorous in his analysis of what he's doing.

      The question, then, is what we view as acceptable behavior in the monestary. If someone attacks another monk, that's wrong. Personally, I can see how my own comments have tread close enough to that line that I have erred. However, while I am not happy with how I chose to word my posts, I stand by my intentions. If someone wants to constantly criticize the Perl language and say how bad it is, I don't feel that Perlmonks is an appropriate forum for that, particularly if that someone keeps getting their facts wrong. I realize that you may disagree with me over that and that's okay. Discussions like this are good.

      Cheers,
      Ovid

      Join the Perlmonks Setiathome Group or just click on the the link and check out our stats.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://44525]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others about the Monastery: (6)
As of 2014-08-01 23:54 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    Who would be the most fun to work for?















    Results (53 votes), past polls