Re: Golf: Improve this guy's fail . . . please!

[jdporter]

I think all the hoo-ha could have been avoided if the OP had simply not cited the source. Where the code came from was utterly beside the point. If necessary, he could have obscured the code somewhat (though in this case I don't think it would have been necessary).

[jvector]

I think all the hoo-ha could have been avoided if the OP had simply not cited the source.

Sorry, but I have to differ. That would have changed the nature of the hoo-ha but there would still have been something very distasteful going on. And at least this way the original author got to have his say and, it is to be hoped, got some 'completion' about the whole sorry affair.

IMO this thread went wrong right from the start, with the thread title. And then went way more wrong with the use of the "PS" term (four times!). And both of these from names that within less than a year I have come to recognise and respect within PerlMonks.

Moritz said at the top of the thread, "This looks embarrassingly similar to my first Perl scripts". I could certainly say the same. I cringe when I see my early stuff. I cringe when I have to maintain others' early stuff (or my own). But like when one is stuck on the road behind a learner driver doing 15mph, it is as well to remember we all had to start somewhere.