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.

Evolution requires mutation 12 Comments More | Login | Reply /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • Weren't you the guy just taking a big dump on the Chicago.pm list? Why not list all the things that you dump on (including use.perl, which you suggested should be taken over by force)? So, when are you going to stop taking big dumps?

    So what if people dump on ideas? It's better than telling people that public debate is forbidden. Perhaps you just don't like open discussion and freedom.

    • For anyone else reading this, if you take any of brian's assertions seriously and are concerned about them, please let me know and I'll refute each. Otherwise, I'll let this lie.
      --

      --
      xoa

      • I’d just like links to the relevant archived message so I can form my own opinion.

      • Someone sent me a chat transcript from August 26, although I asked Pudge about this today and he says the suggestion was never that serious:

        michaelschwern: One proposition was for someone to propose to take over maintenance of use.perl from pudge.
        Andy Lester: But all this gets back to my original premise
        Andy Lester: of where are people to do shit?
        michaelschwern: ?
        Andy Lester: OK, so say we in this room says "Let's overhaul use.perl.org"
        Andy Lester: Who's going to do it?

        As for the other thing I mentioned sta

        • I read the whole thread. Andy's first post was terse but I would not call it a dump and it did foster other talk of which Andy took part and did not dump. I don't see the point here. Not being involved in the Chicago.pm, I would agree with Andy's posts. Especially when you read the second one was created because "Perl lunch" notices were bouncing. After that Andy gave another good suggestion of creating a "social" list for things of that sort under Chicago.pm.

          I read it all and I didn't see dumping.

          Caveat:

          I

        • OK, I'm very confused. I know and like both you and Andy, so perhaps that doesn't help, but I read that thread and I didn't see any dumping. You have two lists for the Chicago area. Andy doesn't think that makes sense and others disagree. Of course, your definition of "dumping" could be considerably different from my own and even if our definitions were the same, the criteria could be subjective enough that we still couldn't agree.

    • However "dumping" and exchanging ideas on something are totally different things.

      "I am not sure why you did this could you fill me in?" is much better than "You did what? That sucks and you are stupid for doing it!". Even if after you get the explanation and don't agree you can still say "I see what you did but I don't think it will work."

      So the Perl community should foster an exchange of ideas and polite discourse and discourage "dumping".

      I don't know any of the "background" issues that caused the article
      • I agree with you. same goes to lines like:

        "why do you write this module when there are dozen of them on CPAN do the same thing. stop wasting your time."

        that's the sorta thing discourages people to innovate and invent something better.

  • Your filibustering is getting old.

    Hasn’t it occured to you that making a habit of loudly berating the critics might just be a tad counterproductive if a friendlier Perl community is what you want to achieve? “Beatings will continue until morale improves!”

    Don’t you think it might, f.ex., be more effective to dispense a few friendly encouraging words where you perceive undue stop energy, instead of telling everyone else that they are doing it wrong, days after the fact? If you didn

  • Wouldn't it have been better to have a short quote with the link to the main article?
  • There's a BIG difference between new ideas that are harmless to others, and new ideas that will impact negatively on others.

    There's a big difference.

    For ideas that don't hurt anyone (perlbuzz, new distributions, etc) I agree.
    • Sure there is a big difference but that doesn't mean you can't explain that to the person instead of dumping. "You did what? That sucks!" is never really acceptable.
Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.