The front-paging of the last node you mention is, in fact, something I deliberately failed to mention.
Why should you mention that citromatik front-paged a node that has something in common with what you wrote? I usually don't consider that worth mentioning anyway.
Therefore, in reply to you, a Koan: "What's the best way for Narcissus to make a self-portrait?"
Sorry, what's wrong? You asked for other nodes that discuss similar contents, and I gave some. Yes, I had the first reply on one of them - so what? Should that prevent me from listing it, even if it's fresh in my memory?
So, what's wrong? envy?
| [reply] |
Were I to have mentioned a well-publicised recent posting, and similar recent postings of the same general content, which led me to ask about fundamentals... perhaps I would be viewed as being personally critical of the authors, which would have missed the real message...
Envy could be wrong, or it might be inspirational. But in any event its not something worth discussing publically on a whim. Philisophically, my inherent irony RE: XP-publicity does relate to Narcissus.
But I am more bored than envious, and seek not my own stature as much as straightening out the spines of all. Perhaps fewer articles should be put on the gates, and Monks should have to go to SoPW and other sections for items truly noteworthy. But, alas, I am a puny monk not privvy to the guidance-planning of the Elders!
But no matter the circumstance, negativity is is a facet of critism that when directed personally can be risky, to say the least. Hence, the Koan.
I was s/was/am/ trying to make all reflect a bit more about the meaning of complexity, and avoid 'sidebar discussions' of rather obtuse, fringe cases and refocus attention on handing out basic wisdom to answer such questions merely through self reflection.
To that end, I appreciate your mention of Tutorials, and remain curious if this subject is sufficiently interesting or requires more coverage -- justifying additions to our Tutorials library. To that end, Monks please remain !mute.
| [reply] |
Were I to have mentioned a well-publicised recent posting, and similar recent postings of the same general content, which led me to ask about fundamentals... perhaps I would be viewed as being personally critical of the authors, which would have missed the real message...
Were you to say what you actually want, we could actually have a constructive discussion.
We've had both very fundamental discussions on complexity (which can be found with Super Search and external search engines, and to some of which I already linked), and we had many discussions about the complexity of particular algorithms and of particular operations in perl.
In my humble opinion both are equally important, but the latter subject is fuller of technical details, and thus for the casual observer less interesting.
Was the point you're trying to make that the former (ie more fundamental discussions) should get more weight?
(I also don't get the point of covering criticism with the friendly face of a Koan - to me it's like saying "I don't mean to insult you, but ..." and then adding an insult. But that might be just personal preference, or cultural difference.)
| [reply] |