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.
  • The bug tracker, which is where people expect to be able to submit bugs...

    How do people find the bug tracker? Magic powers?

    (My theory is that they look for suggestions on how to report a bug on the Parrot website.)

    • I have a theory too.

      People who complain about how the Perl developers are rude, and then intentionally post de-obfuscated developer e-mail addresses on a public web site that are certain to get picked up by spammers, have very little basis for their complaint.
      • As if spammers don't know how to deobfuscate that.

        Such obfuscation is ineffective and indeed does make using the email address harder.

        If you want people to report bugs, MAKE IT EASY AND OBVIOUS. If it takes longer than just typing the bug report itself, there will be people who no longer bother.

        It's still unnecessary and rude to deobfu it in a journal, though.
      • Let me tell you something: if you're living today and think that you're protecting your addresses from spam by obfuscating them, then you're really deluded. Spammers can and do:

        1. Use web crawlers that read all addresses off web-sites.
        2. Install malware on millions of exploited computers and periodically keep record of all the addresses in their address books or received or sent email messages.
        3. Subscribe to mailing lists and listen to the traffic.
        4. Etc.

        If you think you can keep an obfuscated addr

        • Let me tell you something

          No, I will not let you do any such thing. This is not your decision to make. They want to obfuscate it. It is their address. Taking it upon yourself to de-obfuscate it is rude and disrespectful, and you have no argument to make on that matter.

          Just for the record, this is the "Disqualifier disqualifies based on his own fault" or Ad-hominem [wikipedia.org] fallacy.

          It's not a fallacy. It is legitimately calling into question whether your subjective judgment about rudeness is a reasonable one.

          And I never complained that Perl developers are rude

          That is, of course, a lie. [perl.org]

      • Obfuscated e-mail addresses are like copy protection systems. They annoy the legitimate user and pose absolutely zero problems to a spammer gang. I mean, how hard is it to write s/ AT /@/g and see what falls out? And how much effort do I have to go through to decode the latest trick to fool the harvesters?

        For all I know, there's a Mozilla filter that deobfuscates addresses on the fly, which means the code is out there to do this. In that light, Shlomi posting a normal e-mail address is neither here nor th

        • Sure, there's code out there to do this. But usually (at least for me) de-obfuscated email adresses work pretty good. Since the net is full with non-obfuscated mail adresses, why should the spammers bother with the small part that is?

          I second the thought that deobfuscating it was rude and childish, and Shlomi owes a big apology.

          --
          Ordinary morality is for ordinary people. -- Aleister Crowley
    • Well, I'm used to rt.cpan.org where I have a convenient "New Bug" link at the top. And a bug tracker is the first place I'd expect to find that, because that's where every other project expects you to submit bugs.

      So it is bad usability.

      • I'm used to rt.cpan.org...

        Not everyone is. Not every Parrot contributor is a CPAN contributor or even a Perl user. I'm not sure why you think this matters.

        ... a bug tracker is the first place I'd expect to find that...

        Again, how do you expect people to find the bug tracker? Magic powers? Innate knowledge? Is it part of Joseph Campbell's monomyth, or some sort of Jungian archetype that me in my pushes-pull-doors-occasionally cluelessness have failed to integrate into my worldview?

        Me, I think

        • chromatic, most of the large or semi-large projects I know allow you to submit bugs using the bug tracker: KDE [kde.org], Mozilla [mozilla.org], GNOME [gnome.org], all the Various SourceForge projects [sourceforge.net], CPAN [cpan.org]. Etc. This is the default behaviour of most bug trackers, and it meets the users' expectations.

          And as for my generalisation, let me invoke Joel's Generalisation [perl.net.au] here: if it applies to me, it applies to everybody. I'm probably not the first one to make this mistake, and I won't be the last.

          When someone points a usability problem in

          • ... most of the large or semi-large projects I know...

            Now it's merely most, not every. A good UI is consistent. Please be consistent.

            ... if it applies to me, it applies to everybody.

            Thus clearly we should publish all of our documentation in Hebrew first, as it's your native language. It's easier for everyone to understand their native languages than secondary or tertiary languages.

            My corollary to Joel's law is: Joel is wrong.

            When someone points a usability problem in your system, the easy-wa

          • The wiki page you linked says this:

            Now a generalisation of this generalisation is “If it happens to you, it happens to everybody.” or “if it applies to you, it applies to everybody”, which may or may not be true depending on the context.

            You’ll note that the first tenet of usability is “you are not your user.”