in reply to Re (tilly) 1: Why me? Why not Ovid? (discussion)
in thread Why me? Why not Ovid? (discussion)

I pointed you out because I feel you are one of the people most responsible for the lack of respect tolerated here at the monastery. This lack of respect affects many of us, at many different experience levels and with varied history. You do tend to be one of the more vocal people here, so I felt that addressing you personally would perhaps help expose this, and perhaps deal with it. This isnt personality downvoting, its "knowledge discrimination" (where knowledge is either real or perceived). My contention here is that you are not giving me "higher expectations," but simply dislike me. In which case, youre not being helpful, youre being rude. Oh, sure, and the seats at the back of the bus are just as comfortable as those at the front. But I'd like to be treated just as respectfully and congenially as Ovid.

(re: The qq{worse is better} approach (discussion)):

However, when I post a node in response to a node of yours, I do not leave personal notes explaining how I feel about you personally. I disagree with things you do. I disagree with things japhy does (but less often). I disagree with things that all kinds of people do. But I am respectful (and being candid and straightforward can still be in a respectful tone). This, Ben, I think, is the heart of the matter. You just don't like me. I'll discuss this a bit later on in this post. You do seem in touch with the fact that there is more than a general disliking or disagreeing with my coding style or technique. You dislike me, and it shows. I don't think it is fair to be openly rude and critical to some, and respectful and encouraging of others. Them's fightin' words, Ben. Are you inferring either that a) you are not sufficiently competent for me to "learn to be good" or b) that I need to spend more time here with the likes of you? Who appointed you judge? Are you aware of how many "conflict" analogies you use in your open, public conversation with somebody? You leave japhy out of this. He and I are both chanops on #perl on dalnet, and have talked at length in the past. I wouldnt make such a foolish comparison. Japhy is an excellent perl programmer. There are basic points you haven't learned. Why is it I must know everything to be a good perl programmer? The answer is, I really don't have to. Nobody can know everything. Look at what you are saying here. That the only way I can be a good perl programmer is to know everything about perl -- and yet the only way I can be a good programmer is to openly admit I do not know everything about perl. You can't have it both ways, and youre using either way to suit you when you want to deal a verbal blow. Based upon your not liking me. Not based upon whether my code has or hasnt merit.

I think I am going to get to the rest of your post and talk about what a good programmer is, because I think I have made my point about your posts. Or, rather, you have made your point, I just have made the context clear enough and concise enough for you to see it plainly for what it is.

So what makes a good perl programmer?

Actually, lets make this as general as we can. What makes a good programmer? Well, I will use the perhaps over-used analogy of the travelling samurai in feudal Japan.

Consider, if you will, the ronin. A travelling swordsman. Ronin were typically a loud and drunken bunch. There was great variance in their skill level. What is important to note, however, is that Ronin were still Samurai. Ronin were far more skilled than the footsoldiers who went to war and were slaughtered by the thousands.

If you'll bear with me, I'll take this analogy further.

Miyamoto Musashi, the greatest swordsman of all time, started as a footsoldier. He had a rough beginning as a samurai, but eventually came upon a teacher who explained to him the virtues of a samurai. He travelled throughout Japan learning from the various schools of swordsmanship (well, actually, any weapon from ball-and-chain to pikes and staffs). The recurring theme throughout his life was that when he came to a new village and demanded to see the greatest Samurai, the strongest, most skilled warrior, people scoffed.

Musashi met people as skilled as he was. These people (few and far between) knew that Musashi was indeed as skilled as they were, or at the very least, that he made an apt pupil and had things to teach them. Those who did not were almost always confronted with their lack of skill or lack of preparedness immediately before their death.

These warriors, the ones who did not recognize the potential for somebody to have great skill, frequently called out verbal attacks on his character and his honor. These personal attacks we not something that particularly bothered Musashi because Musashi, you see, was a Samurai. He was not prone to calling insults. It simply isn't the way a Samurai behaves.

So where does this take us in terms of what a good programmer is?

Like the martial artist, a good programmer knows that there is always more to learn. A good programmer has pride in what they do, however, and takes utmost pride in their art and their work. Musashi, as you might know, also took time to write at least one book. Imagine that, a swordsman who wrote a book. A good perl programmer, thusly, can also be a good shell programmer. A good perl programmer can also be skilled at graphic design and gimp-fu. A good programmer might be simultaneously a "pretty good" perl programmer, a "pretty good" shell programmer, a "pretty good" Solaris admin, and a "pretty good" kernel hacker.

I'm going to wrap up here, with something you should already know, but I want to make sure you read it again.

I would call Larry Wall a good programmer in general, and a good perl programmer. He wrote the language, after all. I would also call him somebody able to point out that hubris is a virtue in a programmer.

I'm surprised, that with that word in my sig here for as long as it has been, that you've failed to read it at the bottom of every post.

So I'll sign this with a personal note, half in jest, half not.

Lose the attitude. We're all Samurai here. Some of us are better than others, but unless I challenge your honor, it would be dishonorable to chop my head off.

brother dep.

Laziness, Impatience, Hubris, and Generosity.

  • Comment on Re (2): Why me? Why not Ovid? (discussion)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re (tilly) 3: Why me? Why not Ovid? (discussion)
by tilly (Archbishop) on Jul 10, 2001 at 20:56 UTC
    This is long. So don't read it unless you really are interested...
      <Nice post. Thank you.
      We can learn here not only be a better perl coders, but also better humans.
      You reminded me the great masters of Tao (or buddhism), who did not feel urgent need to win by destroying opponent, but just teaching him a lesson. I believe Musashi will consider you a great master, who can, as Lao Tze teaches, win war without fighting.

      Please stop it. You are good, but if you are really good and feel safe about it, you do not need to prove your point by be-heading less skilled wariors. If you do, you are a bully, not a samurai (at least as I remember them from movie 7 samurai). Please read excellent tillys posting Vice to virtue and back again and please realize that sometimes hubris is a vice, and being humble is a virtue. Surely it is true in this case.
      Please stay with our community, but remember, this is perl monastery, not a perl dojo.

      All others:
      If you did not read tilly's posting Vice to virtue and back again, do yourself a favor and do it now.


      To make errors is human. But to make million errors per second, you need a computer.