in reply to Re^6: RFC: Concise OOP Syntax
in thread RFC: Concise OOP Syntax

Apples and oranges, as you are no doubt aware. mst was unhelpfully telling a seeker he was confused, with no other input. Sowing confusion is quite different, obviously. I'm simply calling out misleading statements by someone who acts more and more like the new Sundial, as you did for years with the original. As for moving the ball forward, I'm suggesting that the monk in context move his own by learning standard tools, and move the monastery's by being able to answer questions with real solutions rather than creating new rabbit holes for the unwary to fall in.

The way forward always starts with a minimal test.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^8: RFC: Concise OOP Syntax
by Your Mother (Bishop) on Aug 05, 2019 at 15:52 UTC

    I am not aware. I think the “abused” party was the bad actor in that situation and proof of that is that he presented only his emotional reaction and didn’t cite the exchange because it’s clear to any disinterested party that nothing untoward or hostile happened and it was merely a POV, communication style clash. MST’s humble, effacing response to the blog post is further proof of my assertion.

    I politely asked SunnyD for years to change his participation before elevating responses. There is no other user who can be compared to that situation and it’s disingenuous, borderline smear, to suggest otherwise.

    I agree with you on most issues—you’re closer to me on certain social issue than any other monk I can think of—and I find your posts valuable personally—I’ve learned two things from you lately—but this is clearly a personal vendetta that has nothing to do with contribution value or protecting anyone. This thread is a perfect example of a rather interesting proposal seeking constructive criticism.

    Sidenote: I’m on Perl 5.8 and have had this kind of experience regularly: My colleagues "never" used cpan before and never heard of cpanm. :P

      Wellhrmm I upvoted your post since as usual I found it articulate, cogent and not altogether unconvincing. But it really *is* apples and oranges; the only link between the two situations is the concept of (not the word) confusion. I disagree with you about the case with mst in isolation and in historical context and in personal experience, but cada cabeza es un mundo ...

      The way forward always starts with a minimal test.
Re^8: RFC: Concise OOP Syntax
by Anonymous Monk on Aug 06, 2019 at 13:15 UTC
    someone who acts more and more like the new Sundial

    then take your own advice: "given how much you and others are triggered by this monk. Why not just leave him alone?"

      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.
        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.

        So "he's acting like the new sundial" but sundial was mostly harmless...
        I've never not challenged a bully, meatspace or cyberspace,

        HAHAHHA welcome to the internet good luck with that