Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
laziness, impatience, and hubris
 
PerlMonks  

Re: Developer::Perl::Find

by Juerd (Abbot)
on May 28, 2005 at 08:24 UTC ( #461307=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Developer::Perl::Find

The least you can do is write the name of Perl correctly (with lowercase e, r and l). You may have brillant Perl programmers working for you, but have you even let them proofread the job ads?

Many of the "required" skills I see in this ad can be acquired in a matter of days, sometimes hours. For example, someone may not have any experience using CVS, but if they're a programmer, they better be smart enough to learn to use it in less than an hour.

And my pet peeve, "5+ years of experience". As if a number of years says anything. We see, even on this very site, that some people learn the language and the internals of Perl in two years, while others after 5 years still have to find their way to CPAN, and have no idea that @_ contains aliases. That doesn't mean they *can't* understand it, but it does mean they haven't needed to figure it out yet. I have 7 years of Linux experience, but I regularly learn things from people who have used it less than I have. And I myself am sometimes helping out the people who originally taught me how to use Linux. Everyone has their own interests, and a number of years says absolutely nothing about your skills.

This ad really is boring :) If it said just "Perl expert wanted", with a short explanation of what you consider an expert, you'd probably get the same people to reply, but with a lot less effort from your side. And perhaps it would even get more response from the real experts.

"available, responsive, scalable, secure, up-to-date, and feature-rich." - This really sets your company apart from all those companies who advertise with unavailable, unresponsive, unscalable, insecure, out-of-date sites that lack important features. All of these, I think, should be things that any good developer considers obvious and natural.

In general, perhaps you should communicate with your current employees more about job advertisements. You should know how they think, what they would like to read, because the people you're looking for are just like the people you already hired. That is, if you really have the best working for you.

Juerd # { site => 'juerd.nl', plp_site => 'plp.juerd.nl', do_not_use => 'spamtrap' }


Comment on Re: Developer::Perl::Find
Re^2: Developer::Perl::Find
by thor (Priest) on May 28, 2005 at 12:05 UTC
    The least you can do is write the name of Perl correctly (with lowercase e, r and l). You may have brillant Perl programmers working for you, but have you even let them proofread the job ads?
    Why is this such a huge deal for people? I doubt that java people get riled up when people call it JAVA. Putting a word in all caps needn't imply an acronym, it can be there just for emphasis...

    thor

    Feel the white light, the light within
    Be your own disciple, fan the sparks of will
    For all of us waiting, your kingdom will come

      Why do you NEED emphasis, it's a JOB posting, its not as IF you don't know you're SEARCHING for a PERL job now IS it? HMMMMM?
      Why is this such a huge deal for people? I doubt that java people get riled up when people call it JAVA. Putting a word in all caps needn't imply an acronym, it can be there just for emphasis...
      Because it's a clue indicator. If you spell it as "PERL", you're not plugged in to the community. Consider it a secret handshake.

      In particular, it also means they haven't read perlfaq1, and probably don't even know the FAQ exists, which probably means they don't know all (or even some of) the resources available in the Perl community.

      -- Randal L. Schwartz, Perl hacker
      Be sure to read my standard disclaimer if this is a reply.

        Because it's a clue indicator.

        I could not have said it any clearer :)

        In particular, it also means they haven't read perlfaq1, and probably don't even know the FAQ exists, which probably means they don't know all (or even some of) the resources available in the Perl community.
        I sometimes read documentation for fun, but not everybody does. Besides, of all the included documentation, I'd say that perlfaq1 is of least importance for day to day work (however, if you need to know where to get Larry Wall quotes, this is the place to look). Also, do you think it's the programmers who are asking for, posting, and proof reading job requisitions? Probably not. Lastly, to imply that you know all of anything is hubris. I leave it to you to decide whether that's a good thing or a bad thing.

        thor

        Feel the white light, the light within
        Be your own disciple, fan the sparks of will
        For all of us waiting, your kingdom will come

        I know this is on old thread; but this is probably the best place to post what I have found.

        One should use "Perl" instead of "PERL" because, as a language, especially a technical language, the identification without ambiguity of the semantic structure is of high importance.

        See the Object Modeling Group's "Common Warehouse Metamodel Specification" (OMG CWM v1.1 3/2003) Section 4.3.2.9: Core Metamodel: Expression.
        "An Expression is a statement that will evaluate to a ... set of instances when executed in a context."

        That context is identified by a named language;
        "In general, a language should be spelled and capitalized exactly as it appears in the document defining the language. For example, use COBOL, not Cobol; use Ada, not ADA; use PostScript, not Postscript."

        And I would add: use Perl, not PERL.
      Howdy!

      Doing it once can be chalked up to simple ignorance -- a readily treatable condition.

      In part, it a matter of respect -- of taking it seriously. People who refuse to respect the convention convey the message that they don't care or worse. People who get all exercised about being called on it elevate themselves to the category of stupid -- an untreatable condition.

      I note that the author of the original post didn't get exercised about being called on this point. Clearly, he is genuinely trying to take in such hints and clues as are being proffered here to make his recruiting problem lesser.

      As an aside: I don't know if Sun has defined exactly how java *should* be capitalized. I do know that Larry has done exactly that for Perl.

      yours,
      Michael
      Wise sages, I compel your wisdom - I have questions and am confused... If I may - for reference, disply the portion of perlfaq1 in discussion:
        What's the difference between "perl" and "Perl"?

        One bit. Oh, you weren't talking ASCII? :-) Larry now uses "Perl" to signify the language proper and "perl" the implementation of it, i.e. the current interpreter. Hence Tom's quip that "Nothing but perl can parse Perl." You may or may not choose to follow this usage. For example, parallelism means "awk and perl" and "Python and Perl" look OK, while "awk and Perl" and "Python and perl" do not. But never write "PERL", because perl is not an acronym, apocryphal folklore and post-facto expansions notwithstanding.
      Well, if this was the bible or some other religious text, we could read it as such - wait a second, I'm in a monistrary... err... I take that back.

      Restart: Ok, my read of the Perl Bible, the book of perlfaq1, is as such... given that the text distinguishes between the use of Perl and perl, we can assume that they are divided concepts, each holding separate meanings, 'Perl' attaching itself to the meaning { the language as an entity or conceptually } and 'perl' to the meaning { the interpreter of Perl } (the things in brackets representing ideas - and that ideas are vague and nebulous, vague and nebulous ones). Despite allowing an individual to freely choose personal word usage (You may or may not choose to follow this usage.), the text gives the instruction to never use the term 'PERL', but appends an important mention: "apocryphal folklore and post-facto expansions notwithstanding", minimally giving recognition to the existence of those two things. As metaphors, parables, and allusions abound in religious texts, could it be perhaps that this may imply that at one time the letters p, e, r, and l may have had been bundled together as acronymic representation. One, of course, cannot help but notice that on man pages from the first version until now, the name has been given as perl - Practical Extraction and Report Language, but of course, as PERL can be found nowhere in the texts, we cannot assume anything other than coincidence - attaching meaning that isn't there could be subverting these precious words. But it still mentions those things that could compel a person to PERL, assumptions made after the fact and folklore that it calls apocryphal – could it be that it wants its followers to adhere to a standard in contradiction to something that may have existed long ago (perhaps in the time of Abraham - ie., what is any type of folklore anyway, and what does it take for a person or thing to call it apocryphal).

      Although post-facto expansions would include ideological expansions of written text, it would not the written text itself, should something surface. This part of the Perl documentation may not write of Perl as an acronym, but I would like to cite from the book of Linux Magazine, October 1999, wherein The Larry writes:
        Perl not only stands for the Practical Extraction and Report Language, but it also stands for the Pathologically Eclectic Rubbish Lister.
      What is this? The Larry writes of not one acronym, but of two! Even the main perl manpage mentions this latter acronym (dare I say). I wonder – what then is an acronym if it isn’t a word that stands for a phrase with words the first letters of which make up the acronymic word. In fact, the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines it as such: word (as NATO, radar, or snafu) formed from the initial letter or letters of each of the successive parts or major parts of a compound term. Yet, the perlfaq1 explicitly explains that Perl is not an acronym - is the manpage trying to express an (perhaps the) innate contradiction of our universe - is it covertly trying to say that two opposing sides can both be correct, or wrong, is it opposing moral dichotomy - is morality multidimensional? Please, saints, monks, shed some light on this troubling issue. Perhaps it is expressing that the whole essence of community counterindicates dogma, especially as it relates to the Perl community, for which the major founding principle of timtowtdi guides this premise.

      Monks, oh wise sages of our era, enlighten!

      Best,
        -Adam

      P.S. This is facetious - nobody now get all explosive. As The Larry says in the Linux Mag article: Anyone who can't laugh at himself is not taking life seriously enough. - Perfect!

      --
      Impossible! The Remonster can only be killed by stabbing him in the heart with the ancient bone saber of Zumakalis!

        It's all about history. The name started as simply Pearl, but then Larry found a language also called Pearl, so he dropped the "a". The "definition" of "what Perl means" came afterward, only because people would ask it. Thus, it has never been written as PERL as anyone in the know, because anyone in the know knows the name came before the "meaning".

        -- Randal L. Schwartz, Perl hacker
        Be sure to read my standard disclaimer if this is a reply.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://461307]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others contemplating the Monastery: (14)
As of 2014-07-29 14:06 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    My favorite superfluous repetitious redundant duplicative phrase is:









    Results (217 votes), past polls