Top Turds of comp.lang.perl.misc (2007)

[Charlton Wilbur]

UG> oh, i don't hate moronzilla. i hate what it stands for. i am
UG> appalled that my chosen profession is so easy to enter with so
UG> little actual skill. you wouldn't hire a doctor or lawyer with
UG> the level of skills you see in newbies or moronzilla. and too
UG> many of them work and screw things up and i am brought it to
UG> help clean up the mess. better to hire someone who knows what
UG> they are doing to begin with than cheap kiddies who are always
UG> over their heads. that is what i despise.

It's hardly surprising.

To call yourself a doctor, you need several years of education,
professional certification, and a current license. If you act as a
doctor without all of these things, you go to jail. If you do the
wrong thing as a doctor when you should have known otherwise, you pay
considerable money as damages.

To call yourself a lawyer, you need several years of education,
professional certifiation, and membership in a professional legal
association. If you act as a lawyer without all of these things, you
are heavily fined, or you go to jail. If you do the wrong thing as a
lawyer when you should have known otherwise, you are heavily fined, or
you go to jail.

To call yourself a computer programmer, you don't even need to be able
to operate the computer. You can get hired and paid as a computer
programmer with no qualification whatsoever, and you can continue in
the job regardless of skill. If you do the wrong thing as a computer
scientist when you should have known otherwise, you get promoted to
management and given a bigger budget.

Charlton

 

[Peter J. Holzer]

Perl isn't offered in the BSc/CS curriculum? That speaks loudly to me.

Doesn't speak at all to me. When I was at the university, there wasn't
a single course in the curriculum which was touted as a "language
course". Of course you learned Modula II in the "introduction to
programming" course and you learned C in the "systems programming"
course for the simple reason that these were the languages which you
had to use for the exercises, but that wasn't the actual goal of the
course, and the choice of language certainly wasn't that the language
should be in wide-spread use in "the industry". I don't think Modula was
much used outside of academia at the time, while (Turbo) Pascal or Basic
were quite popular (and I don't think there was a Basic course on the
whole university. The electrical engineers used Pascal for their
programming 101 course). The only language which we were "strongly
encouraged" to learn because we "would need it" was COBOL. Never needed
that again .

hp

 

[Peter J. Holzer]

As I wrote in my other post, I don't think so. Even if Perl were many
many times more popular than it actually is. I think that it's a good
thing people will learn how to program with Java. Then they will
stumble upon Perl and say: whoa, so I don't have to create a whole
class just to print "hello, world"?

I'm not sure. I learned programming with BASIC (real BASIC, with GOTO
and GOSUB and two-character variable names, not some newfangled
dialect), and while I would probably have coped with Java, the quick
sense of achievement you get from

10 print "hello, world"

is something that is important to the beginner.

I never taught perl to beginners, but I think it's a rather good
educational language: You can start with "baby perl" (as Horshack calls
it) and gradually introduce more and more advanced features (the perfect
time to introduce "use strict" and "use warnings" is when your students
can't find a mistyped variable - don't put it into their first "hello
world" program).

Also if you only know Java (and similar languages), you probably won't
appreciate perl (I know it took me some time to get used to it, and I
did know sh and awk in addition to C, Modula, Fortran, etc.). You will
dismiss it as a toy for small scripts, and not accept it as an
"industrial strength" language because it isn't compiled, doesn't do
typechecking, and isn't supported by CASE tools.

hp

 

[cartercc]

Someone is likely going to get on you for 'top posting' your response.
Usenet etiquette, tradition and logical discussion flow dictates that you
post your response below that to which your responding, or interspersed, as
I've done, above, to answer a specific point.

I started with usenet in the days of the rubber cushions used to
cradle a telephone handset. You paid for connection time by the
minute, it it wasn't cheap. In the days of the 9600 baud modem, you
needed to make every line count. In that environment, bottom posters
were cursed. I mean this literally. The rule was, don't repeat what
someone else has already said unless absolutely essential to
understanding. In the case of my top post, nothing anyone else said is
essential to understanding anything I said. So ... no need to bottom
post.

CC

 

[Peter J. Holzer]

I started with usenet in the days of the rubber cushions used to
cradle a telephone handset. You paid for connection time by the
minute, it it wasn't cheap. In the days of the 9600 baud modem, you
needed to make every line count. In that environment, bottom posters
were cursed. I mean this literally. The rule was, don't repeat what
someone else has already said unless absolutely essential to
understanding. In the case of my top post, nothing anyone else said is
essential to understanding anything I said. So ... no need to bottom
post.

Bandwidth is cheap now, but human time isn't. If you quote stuff
unnecessarily, lots of people will read it and curse you because you've
wasted their time instead of taking a few seconds to trim the quoting
to the relevant parts. After some time they will stop cursing and
killfile you instead.

hp

 

[Tad McClellan]

So ... no need to bottom
post.

Unless you want to be heard.

 

[Vincent Vercauteren]

Most contributors to comp.lang.perl.misc are helpful and share good
information. Unfortunately there are a few individuals who are
frequently rude and abusive. For their bad behavior they are hereby
named the Top Turds of comp.lang.perl.misc for 2007.

7. Jürgen Exner (e-mail address removed)
Generally okay but occasionally throws tantrums

6. Tad McClellan (e-mail address removed)
Never learned how to get along with others

5. Purl Gurl (e-mail address removed)
Nuff said!

4. A. Sinan Unur (e-mail address removed)
Luckily the a.sinine one has been absent for a while

3. Michele Dondi (e-mail address removed)
Surely one of the rudest Italians ever!

2. Uri Guttman (e-mail address removed)
Start using the Shift key, dumb ass. Quit hyping your pathetic
File::Slurp module so much. And cut out the whining!

And the stinkiest turd of all...

1. Sherm Pendley (e-mail address removed)
This arrogant asshole seems to think he has all the answers and is
consistently condescending and bullying. Undoubtedly one of the most
obnoxious posters in the history of the group.

Hi,

I've been reading along in this group for about 2 years now. Meanwhile,
my Perl programming has evolved from 'absolute beginner' to
'imtermediate level'. I'm involved in a couple of Perl projects at work,
and every now and then something comes up that I seem to be unable to
solve using the documentation.

But I've never dared to post any question on this group yet, fearing
that the slightest mistake I'd make against the posting guidelines or
other rules might be inflammatory.

While I of course understand that there are rules to be followed,
especially since information is provided on a voluntary basis, I really
don't think the attitude in some peoples responses is justified.

The regulars here that seem to repeatedly suggest that newcomers are
scared away, are actually right.

There surely must be more polite ways of handling bad questions.

Because of this attitude, this is my first ever, and my last ever post
on this group.

Kind regards,


Vincent Vercauteren

Belgian Perl programmer

 

[cartercc]

Unless you want to be heard.

Lot less chance of being heard if you post your pithy two lines after
quoting 500 lines of someone else's drivel.

If your post is clear without reference to a prior post, then you
SHOULD top post. If your post needs a reference to other material for
clarity, the quote only what you need to.

You and I have crossed paths on this several times. Frankly, I find
your insistence that everything be bottom posted regardless of context
juvenile and immature. I know you don't agree, and I won't attempt to
change your mind. If the consequence of my top posting means that you
won't be reading my posts, I can live with that. I don't need you
telling me how to post on usenet.

CC

 

[Jürgen Exner]

Lot less chance of being heard if you post your pithy two lines after
quoting 500 lines of someone else's drivel.

Bollocks. Why would you quote 500 lines of drivel?

If your post is clear without reference to a prior post, then you
SHOULD top post.

Well, in that case top post and bottom post would be identical because you
wouldn't quote anything anyway, wouldn't you?

If your post needs a reference to other material for
clarity, the quote only what you need to.

Sounds like an excellent idea to me. Seems we are actually in perfect
agreement then?

jue

 

[Peter J. Holzer]

Unless you want to be heard.

Lot less chance of being heard if you post your pithy two lines after
quoting 500 lines of someone else's drivel. [...]
Frankly, I find your insistence that everything be bottom posted
regardless of context juvenile and immature.

I don't think Tad ever insisted that you should quote everything and add
your comments below that. He doesn't do it himself.

If your post is clear without reference to a prior post, then you
SHOULD top post.

No, then you should start a new thread.

If your post needs a reference to other material for clarity, the
quote only what you need to.

Right. That's what Tad does and I find it hard to believe that would
advise others to the contrary.

hp

 

[Tad McClellan]

Unless what?

The statement is senseless without its context.

Lot less chance of being heard if you post your pithy two lines after
quoting 500 lines of someone else's drivel.

That's true, but why do you bring that up?

I did not advocate bottom posting.

If your post is clear without reference to a prior post, then you
SHOULD top post.

If it is unrelated to other posts in the thread, then it should
be in a new thread.

If your post needs a reference to other material for
clarity, the quote only what you need to.

Exactly so.

Frankly, I find
your insistence that everything be bottom posted

I have never insisted that! Can you cite even once where I have?

I have insisted that you post in the accepted manner, quote, trim
and interleave.

If the consequence of my top posting means that you
won't be reading my posts, I can live with that.

I expect so, but it isn't just me. It is the way preferred by
everybody here (and nearly everybody elsewhere).

If you can live with everybody not reading your posts, what is
the point of writing them?

I don't need you
telling me how to post on usenet.

Your insistence on ignoring the social moors of your audience
has become tedious.

 

[Tad McClellan]

I don't need you
telling me how to post on usenet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_In_Rome


This is Rome.

 

[Charlton Wilbur]

EJ> How profoundly rude, indeed! ...

EJ> It appears to me that you are using an excuse to substitute
EJ> for a reason why it's OK to be rude. Your point is well made,
EJ> but I still see no good reason for anyone to be rude or
EJ> offensive. Difference of opinion.

Exactly. I see no good reason for anyone to be rude or offensive; the
Posting Guidelines define, at least for the knowledgeable people in
this group, what constitutes rude and offensive behavior.

If you come in here and ask for the documentation to be read to you,
you're being incredibly rude. If you come in here babbling with 'u'
and 'ur' and 'y' and 'ne1' in place of English words, you're being
incredibly rude.

The regulars are just responding in kind, in a form the original
poster is likely to actually recognize as rudeness.

Charlton

 

[Charlton Wilbur]

PJH> When I was at the university, there wasn't a single course in
PJH> the curriculum which was touted as a "language course". Of
PJH> course you learned Modula II in the "introduction to
PJH> programming" course and you learned C in the "systems
PJH> programming" course for the simple reason that these were the
PJH> languages which you had to use for the exercises, but that
PJH> wasn't the actual goal of the course, and the choice of
PJH> language certainly wasn't that the language should be in
PJH> wide-spread use in "the industry".

Likewise. In my case, one learned Pascal as the introductory
language, and that was the end of formal language instruction. And
that was principally a matter of convenience, because Pascal was
sufficiently powerful to teach the basic concepts and sufficiently
expressive that a Pascalish pseudocode could be used to express
algorithms and data structures.

There was also a course in programming languages, where the semester
consisted of learning the rudiments of 8 programming languages besides
Pascal and then talking about how the odd features of each programming
language affected things like parsing the language, compiling,
tradeoffs between things that could be determined at compile-time
versus things that could be determined at run-time, early binding
versus late binding, and so on.

And in a few of the courses, there was an admonition that sample code
and library code would be provided in a particular language (for
Artificial Intelligence, Lisp; for Software Engineering, C++; for
Parallel Computation, ML) and that although no particular language was
required in the coursework, students wishing to perform acceptably
well in those courses ought to familiarize themselves with the
language in the first week or so of the semester even if they intended
to work in other languages and environments.

This did not do good things for my resume; I cannot point and say
"Look, I took a college class in C++." On the other hand, within a
week of starting my current employment, I was debugging ColdFusion
errors that people who had had Official Macromedia Training Courses
could not figure out, so it must have done some good.

Charlton

 

[Charlton Wilbur]

MD> On 15 Apr 2007 07:00:35 -0400, Charlton Wilbur

MD> Well, isn't this the nice part of this world? Seriously, I
MD> think it is.

When I think about recreational and research programming, and the fact
that someone with no credentials but a lot of skill and knowledge can
do well.

When I think about the past few places I've worked, where the hiring
managers could not discern between a competent programmer and (as near
as I could tell) a potted plant, and the potted plant frequently got
hired instead of the competent programmer, I'm not so sure.

When I was an undergraduate, it was rapidly apparent to me that 2/3 of
the people in the world were incompetent and either unaware of that
fact or too lazy to do anything about it; the other 1/3 of people were
doing three times as much work as they needed to to make up for the
other 2/3, plus a healthy dose of undoing poorly done things. When I
got into the IT world, it seemed like I underestimated by an order of
magnitude. Requiring credentials and certification -- at least
*meaningful* credentials and certification, and there's a whole other
can of worms -- or making software engineers legally and
professionally liable for things they approve of, in the way that
engineers in the physical world are legally and professionally liable,
would go a long way.

MD> $Quote->To('.sig');

Alas, it seems as though my principal mark on the world will be as a
creator of .sig-worthy aphorisms.

Charlton

 

[Bart Lateur]

You will
dismiss it as a toy for small scripts, and not accept it as an
"industrial strength" language because it isn't compiled, doesn't do
typechecking, and isn't supported by CASE tools.

A need for case tools is a sign of weaknesses in the language.

Just IMO, of course.

 

[Tad McClellan]

For their bad behavior they are hereby
named the Top Turds of comp.lang.perl.misc for 2007.

^^^^^^^^

That is completly unfair!

How are all of the aspiring turds supposed to keep up their morale
and work on furthering their craft when these lists are published
prematurely?

They all thought they had 2/3 of the year left before the
selections were to be made...