|Welcome to the Monastery|
To Perl or not to PERL.by jethro (Monsignor)
|on Jul 14, 2010 at 09:48 UTC||Need Help??|
Lets imagine you have an important question about a ruby library that's giving you no ends of problems. Finally you are posting your first question on a site dedicated to ruby. Imagine further the first answer you receive would begin with
"First of all, it is Ruby, not ruby. Only the interpreter is called ruby. ..."
Now what would be your first impression of the s/r/R/uby community after that (if you were susceptible to generalizations) ?
a) Very thorough people. And so very right. How could I miss such a fundamental property of the language
b) Hey, did they swallow a stick or what?
I believe that newbies on perlmonks who get corrected about PERL tend to think of sticks as well
If we want to attract new people to perl, there sure are more effective measures (more sensational hype, colors and animations on the website, cool language features to name a few), but one good way to push away interested newcomers is to correct them sternly about a triviality
Is perl vs. PERL vs. Perl a triviality? I would say so (counter arguments welcome), but even if you are of a different opinion you should think about how it looks to new posters. Spelling correction is after all the last line of defense in any flame war and it usually looks silly to everyone else
But wait, I have solutions:
PS: Citations from "Fawlty Towers"
PPS: Yes, this node has the same fault it critizises, i.e. making a big case out of a triviality. Let's call it self referential