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 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.

      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. 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.

      Now I tend to agree with you and Ovid (and the article he quoted) about education, and that it's impossible to teach everything within the scope of the degree, or that high education (or below) can fully prepare people and make them suitable for the job market. 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 may have errored with the same error, when I claimed that too little focus is given on reading "real-world code" [shlomifish.org], which may not be the most elegant, and may be somewhat buggy. One constantly hear people complain about how bad the code that they work or what other people have written is, and how they would love to start over. (This was in fact inspired by what Joel said in "Things you Must Never Do, Part I" [joelonsoftware.com]). In their studies, most people are not exposed to having to read and improve real code, which may be hard-to-read inelegant, or somewhat buggy, but which rewriting it from scratch will be much more time consuming than improving it by writing automated tests, refactoring, etc. In any case, there's little focus given to it in the universities, but I'm not sure if putting it in the curriculum will be a good idea. 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.

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

      • 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

        • 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