Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • I know there are a lot of people who idolize him but I personally found him misleading, incorrect and downright bullshitting. I don't like the hype around him and usually I disagree with much of the things he says. Unfortunately some people gubble up his every word.

    I agree with you on the education issue. It's tricky, and I do believe the most damage is done by the government's attempt to control budgets and trying to calculate something - anything - to try to evaluate where the money should go. George Carl

    • I don't like the hype/cult around Joel either, but I'm still an avid reader of his articles because I find them funny, amusing and usually insightful, or otherwise giving good food for thoughts and acting as a useful starting point for further discussion of the matter. I don't always agree with what Joel says, and naturally buy everything he says with a grain of salt, but still find value in what he says.

      It seems there's often an opposite phenomenon from what you describe - that many times I mention some

      • I don't like the hype/cult around Joel either, but [...] I don't always agree with what Joel says, and naturally buy everything he says with a grain of salt, but [...]

        That's funny you should say stuff like that. You seemed to me like someone who adores Joel. I'll elaborate on this below.

        It seems there's often an opposite phenomenon from what you describe - that many times I mention something that Joel says for support someone gives an ad-hominem attack [wikipedia.org] saying how much Joel sucks and how much it means my article is invalid.

        I think you're missing the point. Yes, people do sometimes have a knee-jerk response of attacking Joel instead of saying "you're incorrect and here's why" but you have the most annoying habit of simply quoting Joel instead of saying why you think he's correct. It really pisses me (and other people) off. Many times in a debate you pull out a Joel fortune cookie as if it's going to win your stance. You assume on Joel's reputation (which is full of shit IMHO) instead of backing your words up. Saying "well, Joel thinks that" doesn't mean you automatically win a discussion.

        If you have specific arguments against what Joel (or whoever) said, feel free to mention them giving proper reasons for why you think they are wrong.

        This should actually be the exact opposite. If you have specific arguments why you're quoting Joel (except for your fascination of him), you should state them instead of just raising a Joel-flag and thinking you got the issue licked just by doing that. Burden of proof is on the presenter of ideas.

        But from my impression of your Internet persona, you tend to throw many arguments into the air without giving proper explanation or reasoning (like "I disagree. What you said or your link sucks."), and expect us to guess why you think so. To do so is anti-intellectual, and I can easily dismiss what you said for lack of proper reasoning.

        I resent that, and I don't resent much. First of all, first time you mentioned Joel when I just started on Israel.pm, I wrote a rather long argument (IIRC) on why I think Joel is incorrect. It went right over your head. Most times I find that you're pretty anal on a lot of things and I don't get that much pleasure or knowledge by having a long exhaustive discussion with you. So, a lot of times I say I disagree and move on. Yes. Same asshole behavior as Nietzsche. Secondly - and this is key - I don't assume that you should agree with me without knowing my arguments, but you do! You assume that by saying "Well, Joel obviously thinks differently, here's a quote from my bible [Joel limited edition]", I should agree with you right away. You do it often, and it's tiresome and annoying. You don't explain why you think it's this way or the other. That's why I never even listen to your discussions when you throw a Joel quote. It seriously pisses me off, and I don't appreciate you calling my actions "anti-intellectual" when at least I say what I think and not just quote a self-appointed "computer-wiz" as my claim.

        Oh, and fuck your impression of my "Internet persona". I write detailed emails, and you will find not once or twice an apology for the length of my emails. So that's completely incorrect and offensive.

        I wouldn't accuse Joel of trying to sell his tools on purposes - that doesn't seem to be his primary motivation behind his post, but he still may believe he knows too well how to do things the right way.

        I wouldn't assume on his greed just yet either.

        I may have errored [...]

        Since you like picking small fits on grammar with me, I'm giving you this one for free: it's erred, not errored.

        [...] (This was in fact inspired by what Joel said in "Things you Must Never Do, Part I" [joelonsoftware.com]). [...]

        No shit. I'm completely surprised something he wrote inspired something you wrote. This is another prime example of Joel. Rewriting code from scratch is sometimes a must. A few examples come to mind: GNU/Linux (those are actually 2 things), GNOME, Git, Perl 6. I could think of more, but I won't, for now. The point being that it's not the "single worst mistake", it's often the "unfortunate necessity of a project".

        Maybe giving more projects where students contribute to open-source code (and not necessarily the best open-source code out there - there's a lot that's pretty bad), and then eventually merging it in, instead of writing something from scratch would be a good idea.

        I think that's a good idea. Google Code has been doing just that, which is why I highly support it.

        But I agree that measuring universities based on metrics is bad.

        Agreed.

        • Well, since we're down to personal accusations and pointless discussions on who ultimately has the burden of proof lies, allow me to invoke Godwin's Law [wikipedia.org] and end this discussion: you are a Nazi!

          OK, I've lost, now let's go on with the rest of our lives. I'll continue to link to Joel when and if I agree with him. If you think he (or whomever I'm citing) is wrong and you expect to convince me that you are right, then you'll need to give me a proper argument explaining why and where he is wrong. Otherwise, I'

          • Well, since we're down to personal accusations and pointless discussions on who ultimately has the burden of proof lies, allow me to invoke Godwin's Law [wikipedia.org] and end this discussion: you are a Nazi!

            No dice! I'll invoke the Reverse Godwin's Law [just invented] which goes by: "I may be a Nazi, but you're still dead wrong!".

            The beginning offending post was your comment saying I "tend to throw many arguments in the air without giving proper explanation". It's not correct and it's offending. I understand you don't find it so, because you're the one who said it so you give very little (to none) fuck of other people being offended. That's fine, but don't try to turn this into "we're down to personal accusat