Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
No such thing as a small change
 
PerlMonks  

Opinionated, yet anonymous...?

by crenz (Priest)
on Apr 24, 2003 at 08:54 UTC ( #252804=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re: (jeffa) 3Re: (USING POE!) Re: 'better mousetrap': how to perform timed event
in thread 'better mousetrap': how to perform timed event

Sorry, you are totally wrong.

1. You are posting as Anonymous Monk. If you feel you have to make that kind of opinionated statement, log in. Yes, you will be downvoted, but PerlMonks is not about XP, right?

2. jeffa never denied the general usefulness of the /o modifier. He merely states it bothers him, and gave a good explanation why. He even called his own behaviour "cargo-cultish", which should be enough to tell you that he doesn't want to push /o in the bit bucket.

3. jeffa probably doesn't need to be "jaundiced". He is a long-standing member of PerlMonks and an experienced programmer. Not everybody plays silly games all the time.

4. He didn't call himself an expert.

5. IMHO, it is clever to only get bitten once, and then think about it. Not that he mentioned that he only got bitten once, though.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Opinionated, yet anonymous...?
by Anonymous Monk on Apr 24, 2003 at 09:54 UTC

    1. If XP doesn't matter, then what matter the originator of the opinion? If the opinion has merit, factor it into your thinking, if not, move and ignore it. Down vote if that makes you feel vindicated.

    2. Cargo-cult implies this is rote-learnt behaviour rather than experiential conclusion. Consider from where this behaviour might have been culted.

    3 thru 5. You assume too much when you assume the comment was directed at jeffa or any other individual. History is the key. Where did the culted behaviour originate? How and why does it perpetuate?

    When the language designers added the /o modifier, they obviously perceived of the circumstance when such optimisation would be useful and beneficial. Dismissal under a catch-all term as a micro-optimisation suggests that the designers were wrong. Its strange how often it is the same voices that routinely attribute the wares of MS, Sun and others as bloated and being part of a conspiracy to fuel the need for hardware and software upgrades, that are the first to condemn those that attempt to write clean, efficient, optimal perl code.

    Add this to the list of other perl features equally dismissed in this place as being non-useful: symbolic references, global variables, goto, c-style for loops, regexen of any complexity, while loops whith implicit assignment to $_ and all the other things that have variously been "condidered harmful".

      "Dismissal under a catch-all term as a micro-optimisation suggests that the designers were wrong."

      I disagree. I interpret that to mean "use with caution". eduardo knows me. He asked me a damn good question and i answered with my opinion. No where did anybody say that the designers of Perl should be "embroiled, confused and kept in the quagmire" for adding the o modifier.

      "Add this to the list of other perl features equally dismissed in this place as being non-useful ..."

      Who said obfuscation is non-useful? :P

      Oh, and even if you didn't directly direct the comment at me, you did so indirectly by replying directly to me. :) (one self-ascribed expert ... oooookay)

      Sigh ... all of this bitterness ... i think it's PEANUT BUTTER JELLY TIME!!!

      jeffa

      L-LL-L--L-LL-L--L-LL-L--
      -R--R-RR-R--R-RR-R--R-RR
      B--B--B--B--B--B--B--B--
      H---H---H---H---H---H---
      (the triplet paradiddle with high-hat)
      
      Add this to the list of other perl features equally dismissed in this place as being non-useful
      This is an unforunate truth, but another unforunate truth is that while all those features serve a purpose, and it serve it well, they can be easily mis-used and are therefore discouraged (said discouragement usually occurs when the constructs are mis-used). It's the same with almost any feature in perl (and any language for that matter), it's no good to sprinkle it about the code because it's there you have to have an understanding of what the construct does and where it is appropriate to use it.
      HTH

      _________
      broquaint

Re: Opinionated, yet anonymous...?
by zengargoyle (Deacon) on Apr 24, 2003 at 09:54 UTC

    nah, this one doesn't need to login, it's easy enough to tell that it's that anonymous.

Re: Opinionated, yet anonymous...?
by Anonymous Monk on Apr 24, 2003 at 20:49 UTC
    If you feel you have to make that kind of opinionated statement, log in.

    One question comes to mind. Why? It's not as if it changes anything. It doesn't increase your accountability in any way. Maybe you'd like every anonymous monk to post their full legal name, address, phone number, and zip code? How about we get our respective governments to mandate authentication software, would that make you feel better?

    Let the post stand on its own. Analyze what is said, don't worry about who posted it. You'll learn a lot more.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://252804]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others studying the Monastery: (9)
As of 2019-09-19 10:22 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?
    The room is dark, and your next move is ...












    Results (242 votes). Check out past polls.

    Notices?