http://www.perlmonks.org?node_id=11104049


in reply to Re^8: RFC: Concise OOP Syntax
in thread RFC: Concise OOP Syntax

Well, your advice to follow my advice is good advice, and I may follow it. But since you included my question "why not just leave him alone," I'll answer it:

The difference for me is that Sundial was an addled old man whose ramblings were mostly harmless and usually not targeted at anyone in particular, whereas I find this other monk in context to be something of a bully, e.g. in his response to the angry ranter this whole fiasco began with. I've never not challenged a bully, meatspace or cyberspace, and I can't say I expect *that* trigger to change. But I will strive to ignore his addled ramblings. Thanks.


The way forward always starts with a minimal test.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^10: RFC: Concise OOP Syntax
by Your Mother (Archbishop) on Aug 06, 2019 at 16:40 UTC
    whose ramblings were mostly harmless

    Strongly disagree. Unless by “mostly” you mean that his output was so enormous the dangerous bits were a little hard to encounter. He presented as a top tier Perl expert and frequently gave advice that would get one fired or hacked and was nearly pure noise—needle skipping at the end of the platter forever—beyond that. Without strong pushback he could have become the poster-boy for Pythonistas demonstrating how Perl really is just a joke.

[reply]

      :-) I still think you overestimate his power to lead astray and underestimate your own and the Monastery's to show the Way.

      The power of your own Good Answer, let alone one each from half a dozen monks, to counteract one of his signal-free or even misleading ones.

      "frequently gave advice that would get one fired or hacked"

      But who would follow such advice? I also think you underestimate the BS-detector skills on the part of seekers. You'd have to be really lacking in ability to evaluate the worth of on-line posts in general if you were to conclude that any one of Sunny D's wordy, say-nothing posts was to be heeded ahead of the accompanying ones full of clarity, detail, links, etc. -- even if you were on day One of a community college "coding" class. I've seen people thank Sunny D for making them look at the problem another way, but I don't think I can remember anyone rushing out to implement his suggested approach: when has he ever posted one clear enough to follow?!

      What I have always objected to is the stuff that goes past pointing out a specific flaw or error in what he posted and goes into what an idiot he is, how bad his nodes' reps are, how he's never demonstrated working code, etc. I think that is piling on a senile old man who doesn't make sense anyway and I would get right up in the grille of anyone I saw doing it IRL too.

      ✌️


      The way forward always starts with a minimal test.
[reply]
Re^10: RFC: Concise OOP Syntax
by Anonymous Monk on Aug 06, 2019 at 18:29 UTC
    So "he's acting like the new sundial" but sundial was mostly harmless...
[reply]
Re^10: RFC: Concise OOP Syntax
by Anonymous Monk on Aug 06, 2019 at 21:10 UTC
    I've never not challenged a bully, meatspace or cyberspace,

    HAHAHHA welcome to the internet good luck with that

[reply]

In Section Meditations