Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Welcome to the Monastery
 
PerlMonks  

a proposal for a new section on PerlMonks

by gargle (Hermit)
on Sep 28, 2005 at 17:15 UTC ( #495839=monkdiscuss: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??

Hi,

I would like to request comments regarding the following proposal: A new section on PerlMonks called maybe "wtf" for showing of , discus, and (highly) probably explain the worst/most funny/strange perl code seen.

I'm not talking about obfuscation! I'm talking about really strange code, weird, inappropriate algorithms...

Also note that I'm talking about code that runs - error free.

I do understand that We already have Worst Nodes but Worst Nodes is about the approval of nodes, not especially about the approval of perl code.

Anyway, my first entry would be Re: generate combinations of lists. It would fit the description of a wtf as it shows one of the worst possible algorithms to generate permutations.

I hope the example shows the spirit of a wtf.

Anyway? Any comments?

--
if ( 1 ) { $postman->ring() for (1..2); }

2005-09-29 Retitled by g0n, as per Monastery guidelines
Original title: 'a proposal'

Comment on a proposal for a new section on PerlMonks
Re: a proposal for a new section on PerlMonks
by halley (Prior) on Sep 28, 2005 at 17:48 UTC
    Downvoted: any proposal to add a new section for some vague pet concept.

    As for your vague pet concept in particular, what makes a WTF writeup versus something you could discuss in Obfuscation? As long as you say something along the lines of "my cow-orker wrote this; let's all giggle at its stench of incoherency," it would be perfectly suitable.

    --
    [ e d @ h a l l e y . c c ]

Re: a proposal for a new section on PerlMonks for a wtf section
by ww (Bishop) on Sep 28, 2005 at 17:54 UTC
    On the one hand, bogo_sort algorithm examples with REALLY CLEAR and ACCURATE reply nodes could have a lot of value...
    ...but on the other, I'm concerned that a wtf section could be overpopulated with nodes mis-categorized by those (like me) with insufficient CS expertise to correctly ID a "weird, inappropriate" algorithm... or to distinguish between "strange code" and that that's been golfed; represents a style with which the reader is unfamiliar, etc.

    And on the (customary) third hand, if implemented, I would suggest every node granted the honor of wtf membership should display with a very ^H^H^H^H^H VERY prominent identification, lest it be mistaken for "good" code or algorithm... and that its progeny be similarly rendered with a note (lest it be unclear, in some cases) that the node is response to perceived example of wtf

Re: a proposal for a new section on PerlMonks
by sauoq (Abbot) on Sep 28, 2005 at 18:42 UTC
    Anyway? Any comments?

    It seems every day there is another suggestion for another section. We have plenty of sections. We don't need one for joke or just-plain-ridiculous algorithms any more than we need one for regex questions or advocacy.

    -sauoq
    "My two cents aren't worth a dime.";
    
Re: a proposal for a new section on PerlMonks
by spiritway (Vicar) on Sep 28, 2005 at 21:02 UTC

    I think adding a section would be overkill, but I like the idea of finding bogo-sort class code. There's a kind of perverse enjoyment of seeing really bizarre code. The problem, of course, is that my strange code is innovative, unique, clever; their strange code is just bizarre and dumb. Seems we might wind up with some ruffled feathers and flaming, if we had a section like that.

      The problem, of course, is that my strange code is innovative, unique, clever; their strange code is just bizarre and dumb.
      Indeed the code that I submitted for this snippet is conceptually the same I had posted to news:comp.lang.perl.misc earlier in this article (available from Google Groups here), but the latter had "somewhat" less orthodox flow control structures; and indeed IIRC someone misunderstood it. Needless to say I thought this choice was very cool, back then...
Re: a proposal for a new section on PerlMonks
by herveus (Parson) on Sep 28, 2005 at 22:04 UTC
Re: a proposal for a new section on PerlMonks
by Mutant (Priest) on Sep 29, 2005 at 09:37 UTC
    I agree with others - I don't think this warrants a new section. If you're replying to a SOPW and want to give a 'wtf' type answer (like the one you've linked to), then it should stay in SOPW as a child of that node.

    If you want to give examples of WTF type code (either your own, or others), then post in meditations (it's been done before).
Re: a proposal for a new section on PerlMonks
by jdporter (Canon) on Jun 14, 2006 at 19:51 UTC

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: monkdiscuss [id://495839]
Approved by castaway
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others taking refuge in the Monastery: (8)
As of 2014-10-02 17:13 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    What is your favourite meta-syntactic variable name?














    Results (66 votes), past polls