Re: RFC: Tutorial: use strict; now what!?

[RedElk]

in reply to RFC: Tutorial: use strict; now what!?

Under Purpose of Strictures you wrote "We often use strict; to prevent us from making stupid or careless mistakes."

Who are the ubiquitous "we" and "us"?

A direct tone would work better. For example..."Use strict; to prevent stupid or careless mistakes".

Also, the final sentence of this same paragraph is overly emphatic and not necessary. The chainguard metaphor makes your point very clear.

My 2 cents.

[tye]

For example..."Use strict; to prevent stupid or careless mistakes".

A direct tone can be useful. Combining a direct tone with the word "stupid" is probably... not smart. Yes, a "stupid mistake" does not actually imply that the actor is generally stupid. But I'm sure there will be readers who are... um... not fluent enough in English to realize that. The word "careless" is not much less loaded.

I would suggest combining the direct tone with the phrase "typographical errors (typos)". Though, not having read the tutorial, there might be another approach that better fits into it.

[Xiong]

Agreed; delete:

<c>use strict;</c> is the <i>chainguard</i> that keeps you 
from ripping off your own fingers. 
- Use it for your own safety.

[Xiong]

Who are the ubiquitous "we" and "us"?

We cook your meals, we haul your trash, we connect your calls, we drive your ambulances, we guard you while you sleep.
Do not fuck with us.

[RedElk]

That's cute.

But, I'm not sure you got my point. The way you employ the ubiquitous "we" and "us" in your tutorial sounds like you're talking down to your reader. Not the right tone, in my opinion.

[educated_foo]

Talking down to the reader is broadly accepted on this site. It's the Free Software business model: you can't get paid for giving advice here, but by providing code or advice, you can earn the privilege of condescending to or verbally abusing people. See the linux-kernel mailing list or the #perl IRC channel for more examples.

[Xiong]

Sorry; we don't agree.