You were the one who started in on the whole, "I don't want to work with lesser programmers" bit.
As for reading the Perl documentation, let's put that into perspective. There are over 150,000 lines of core Perl documentation. You will not find that quirk of Perl syntax documented therein. You will have trouble finding that quirk of Perl syntax documented in introductory Perl texts. Certainly it is not in the second edition of Programming Perl, and I don't think it is in the third edition either. I admit that it is documented in strict's documentation. But it was not documented there when I was learning Perl.
There is a difference between knowing a language and being a language lawyer. A feature that obscure crosses the line. Now before you wish to defend your view that this level of language lawyering is appropriate, let me point out that in the past month I have written production code in Perl, SQL, C++, Java and JavaScript. What I wrote in all of those languages was useful. I have learned something about programming from what I've learned in each of those languages. I am incapable of that kind of language lawyering in most of those languages. Do I want to deal with it in those languages? Obviously not. If not, then should I want to deal with it in the languages that I have learned that well? No again.
Now you say that you don't want to work with people who can't do language lawyering at that level. That's a pretty high bar to set. For instance chromatic was tripped up by that one. If you're an employer, do you want to have to find people with a better knowledge of language trivia than chromatic had then? That's a pretty high bar to set!
Now you can just dismiss this as my opinion. But from the reputation of your posts in this thread, I'm not alone. | 