You seem to imply that Princepawn's relentless discourses have an important harrowing effect, by constantly forcing us to reevaluate our position.

Yes.

The implication is that he's a Judas figure-- someone who does something despicable that is nontheless {sic} necessary.

Absolutely not. To my knowledge, Perl Monks has zero need for despicable yet necessary actions. You may find princepawn personally despicable, but I would be aghast if you or anyone else found it despicable that he persistently questions such things as inconsistencies in a language that is undeniably imperfect. Let me rephrase that actually -- I have been aghast.

My original point, as you stated very succinctly in the first sentence, was that much of what princepawn has written has been valuable and necessary, because languages (and for different reasons, communities) ought to be kept on the defensive. Any offensive comments against individuals are a different matter entirely, and I have no problem whatsoever with verbal condemnation of monks who personally attack other monks (or classes of monks).

I understand the moral lesson behind the two Bible stories you presented, but I don't think they apply very well in this case, because it is not necessary for one to be morally bankrupt or personally distasteful in order to bring criticism to bear.

Update: Good point below by KM. But frankly, I would have no problem going to a mousetrap community and suggesting a better one. Use of a hammer analogy instead of a mousetrap analogy implies that Perl is a fully evolved tool. This I cannot agree with.

e-mail neshura


In reply to Re: A Judas Among Us? by neshura
in thread Chapter 714: The Long Chapter by neshura

Title:
Use:  <p> text here (a paragraph) </p>
and:  <code> code here </code>
to format your post; it's "PerlMonks-approved HTML":