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.
  • Actually, streching the analogy a little, you could liken improv to making your test suite test for some unlikely/scary test cases no one in their right mind would think of, in which case it might indeed improve it. Or you might think instead that a perfectly logical and rational mind should come up with evry meaningful teat case in which case I guess the analogy breaksdown completely... your pick ;--)

    For me though, one of the great joys of having modules on CPAN is having people contact me with questions a

    --
    mirod
    • I don't understand why some people vigorously defend the untenable position that programming is art. There can be artistry involved and it is often a creative practice, but what's wrong with considering programming a craft?

      • Well if we go with Wilde's idea that "All art is quite useless" which expands to basically say that art exists only to be beautiful so cannot have a use as that would spoil the beauty of it, then all of Acme:: would be art? And everything else a craft?

        To be serious though, the problem I have is being able to define "art" and then define "craft" based on that. Art has be defined and redefined over the centuries and will continue to be so and at this point I think Wilde's idea is pretty much completely outdated in the contemporary art scene of today. What is to stop you from using a module that I have written as an act of performance art? Would your using it suddenly nullify my artistic intent? Tis a slippery slope full of lots of slippery bullsh*t, but hey this is art!

        - Stevan

        • ... art exists only to be beautiful ...

          Did you mean "meaningful"?

          ... so cannot have a use as that would spoil the beauty of it...

          More likely there is an intrinsic quality of art beyond any functional considerations. A plain chair is functional. A filigreed throne is also functional, but it contains art. Similarly, you can use a piece of cardboard to shim a wobbly table, or a Botticelli, but that doesn't make the Botticelli not art.

          To be serious though, the problem I have is being able to define "art

        • Art is what’s supposed to evoke an emotional reaction.

          • Trolling is art?

            • Yes! This is quite funny to me as it hadn’t occur to me to think of it that way. But in a sense it clearly is, or at least can be. Most of it is equivalent to a crayon scrawl more than to a Rembrandt, though.