|
Re: RTFM ( How can we improve the FM? )
by LanX (Saint) on Dec 15, 2017 at 16:59 UTC
|
Seems it was more "What did you try and how did it fail?" than RTFM.
Instead of answering
you could have said something like
- "Yes but point A is unclear and the concept of B is ambiguous"
In general we are interested in improving documentation not in
duplicating unread things.
Maybe try to be less emotional and more goal oriented about it. :)
| [reply] |
Re: RTFM!!!!! (but if you didn't, no biggie)
by shmem (Chancellor) on Dec 15, 2017 at 15:23 UTC
|
$::Laziness. _(m?!\)Oo. M xyz ___ doesn't mean to "skip RTFM":
+:$
$::Impatience. G°\ \ / / hurts while learning things:
+:$
$::Hubris. /\_¯/(q / / doesn't mean to know it all:
+:$
$::--------------------- \__(m.===·==· -)--])?);sub AUTOLOAD{map{print
+&&
select($,,$,,$,,$|/++$-)}map{pack c,($|++?1:13)+ord}split//,shift||ESE
+L}
alarm if$Herl.Pack("\cG"x4 ."Itrs\c_`mnsgdq\c_Gdbj\c_O`qk"),er(qq.dq\t
+.)
Just an email signature. For some gleeful fun, run that with -w ;-P
That said, yes, almost all answers to any question about perl have already been given, specially if we're not dealing with obscure edge cases or being hooked upon blead perl. Sometimes advice which empowers the questioner to solve their problem on their own ist best.
Then, it is all about economics. Of course not all perl programmers have a deep knowledge about the platform they work upon, and for most cases that's not even necessary, since perl is very good at abstracting away the intrinsics. So, sometimes it is just more efficient to ask, say, on IRC
<me> I am having problems installing Foo. I get Can't exec "bar_blurb": No such file or directory
<them> what OS, what version? which perl?
<me> Debian jessie, perl-5.24.1 in perlbrew
<them> do "apt-get install libbar-dev" and you should be done.
<me> worked! cool, thanks a lot.
instead of prodding e.g. the depths of my OS and its package manager (but imho to be a really good perl programmer, you have to know your platform and its tools).
Last, we are all being blind. Of course it is all documented in the manual pages. But which one? If I am able to make a good educated guess, I grep the pod section, but what if I don't? Blindness is even more the case when it comes to bugfixing, because I don't write code to write bugs, and so finding my very own bugs is the most tiresome and tedious work I have to do once in a while, and at the end there's mostly *facepalm*. In contrast, finding a bug in someone elses code often is only a matter of minutes.
My knowledge is obvious to me, but not to others, and I can only guess (sometimes) what knowledge they have. But overall, most Monks know the points I addressed, are being very polite and tolerant and going much out of their way to answer things, some casual misinterpretations nonwithstanding.
perl -le'print map{pack c,($-++?1:13)+ord}split//,ESEL'
| [reply]
[d/l]
[select] |
Re: RTFM!!!!! (but if you didn't, no biggie)
by 1nickt (Canon) on Dec 15, 2017 at 13:44 UTC
|
You will not become a proficient programmer if you do not become self-sufficient and use the documentation provided. "I glanced at it" doesn't count as "trying to figure it out."
"I read the doc and I don't understand where it says 'blah blah' -- I tried it with this code but I got this unexpected result. Can you help me see what I've missed?" does count.
The way forward always starts with a minimal test.
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |
|
|
That was no debate. That was you being confronted on your approach to learning, which you've shown repeatedly is essentially "give me the answers without me doing the necessary work." If you didn't want to be taken to task again about that approach, posting a meditation defending it in these halls of learning was probably not the way to go.
The way forward always starts with a minimal test.
| [reply] |
|
|
Re: RTFM!!!!! (but if you didn't, no biggie)
by Anonymous Monk on Dec 15, 2017 at 15:52 UTC
|
think that spirit of gift giving and reciprocation is what makes PM such a great community and Perl such a great programming language. I will do my absolute best to carry on the tradition. You've been here 17 years, 702 posts, 18 posts (2%) in the thread that you refuse to discuss. Part way thru you take a break from that and suggest that (1205532) perl programmers shoot themselves in the head. In the thread you refuse to talk about you keep missing the point, then paraphrase (1205484) someone else, while even managing to drag down a one line quote to the gutter, remaining ignorant to the fact that it's not applicable in this context. You're a gem, for sure the behavior we want to encourage here. Reply with one worth while contribution you've made.
| [reply] |
|
|
suggest that (1205532) perl programmers shoot themselves in the head
At first glance, I thought the cylindrical red thing in the picture linked to looked kind of like a shotgun shell, which I am guessing your comment is referring to. But taking a closer look, and especially googling the part number printed on the side, reveals that it's just a lithium ion battery.
| [reply] |
|
|
Other guy here, not a smoker or ecigarette smoker
First , second , third and fourth glace, the picture read as shotgun cigarette or instant suicide cigarette
Saw some commentary that also saw it the same way
I looked again now, and saw some other commentary thats talking about that vape belongs in a museum
Whatever the message nysys is trying to communicate, this AM called it
| [reply] |
|
|
|
|
| [reply]
[d/l] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in. |
Re: RTFM!!!!! (but if you didn't, no biggie)
by sundialsvc4 (Abbot) on Dec 16, 2017 at 01:22 UTC
|
When someone asks a question, let us simply strive to answer it, without judgment. If the answer is not sufficiently clear, ask for clarification. If the question is “something so childishly-simple that you knew the answer to it fifteen years ago,” remember that fifteen years have passed. If the question is not lame but is (to you) obvious, remember all the very-many times that the roles were reversed. If you think that the OP’s situation is best answered by providing context, try to write your response not only for this one person, but for however-many anonymous Super Searchers™ that will inevitably follow.
PerlMonks is one of the very-oldest technical forums on the Internet, and, although it is “by-definition officially” focused on a fairly-specific programming language, its continuing tradition is that “here you can very-quickly find expert answers from the very-best of the very-best of the long time players in this crazy computer-programming game.” Let us strive to keep it that way.
When anyone reaches out on an Internet forum to ask a question ... they are exposing themselves. Just like we once did, way back when. They just might have their backs against a wall. The clock is ticking fast. We were once there too ... hell, we’ll be back there, soon enough! Let’s write a response that we will still be proud of, decades hence.
| |
|
|
I'll chime in on this thread finally.
"Let’s write a response that we will still be proud of, decades hence."
One of the oldest responses on the Internet is "RTFM", no matter how you slice it. It's also the most realistic response to anyone who is having an issue when it has been proven that the docs clearly portray how something should be done.
Now, I am in agreement with others that if the docs are followed but are either inaccurate, ambiguous or otherwise confusing, ask a question about it, and, I'm in agreement with sometimes you just need a quick answer so ask it (Rubber Duck Debugging), but I do not agree with asking questions when one has the time to read the docs thoroughly but don't. That don't go over too well.
As a (what I like to think as a somewhat) prolific software author amongst a few languages who is vehement on keeping documentation as accurate, legible and understandable as possible, I want to know when my docs aren't portraying the usage of the API or binary I've written so that it is completely understood. It takes me as long, or even longer to write my usage documentation than it does to write the code, and oftentimes longer than writing the code and tests combined.
When one has time to take a few moments to read the docs, then say they were scanned (without actually testing what the doc says) is actually an insult to any software writer who takes the time to write really decent documentation.
RTFM
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |
|
|
Hypocrite, you don't do any of this. You never post working code. You chastise others for posting code efforts! You are frequently challenged on the lies you tell, and you never respond with anything to prove such claims to anyone who is critical of your posts. If you cared at all for this site, rather than your own self promotion you'd simply stop posting. You add nothing of value to anyone.
| [reply] |
A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.
|
