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.
  • We can all certainly agree on one thing -- the idea of certifying Perl programmers is surely guaranteed to elicit some lively discussion!

    But the pattern of responses is always the same -- a few well-known JAPHs coming out against it, and the rank-and-file community members taking neutral, or strongly favorable positions, because they don't want to convert to Java/C++ etc. just to gain employment, and certification might help there (see my TPJ article [teachmeperl.com]). As I've argued in that article, and in postings on the

    --

    Dr. Tim Maher
    CEO, Consultix
    Perl and UNIX Training [teachmeperl.com]
    • I read your article.

      There is no need to devolve this debate into personal attacks. Let's stick to arguing the mertis.

      You still ignore my most important concern, and the one I have expressed for years---who is going to take on the legal laibility. No one has ever answered that. Cisco, Sun, and Microsoft know how to answer that question because they have legal departments and deep pockets.
      • You still ignore my most important concern, and the one I have expressed for years---who is going to take on the legal laibility.

        Is there such a thing as a legal liability at all? In my understanding, no certificate ever guaranteed infallibility. And that should be easy to settle in a sort of disclaimer.

        And since you mentioned them: Has anyone ever seen one of the certificates as offered by Cisco, Sun or Microsoft? I haven't, but I am pretty sure that they refuse to take on any legal liability.
        • Remember that a woman sued McDonald's because they served her hot coffee, and she won.

          Lawsuits do not have to have merit to destroy you. They do not bother deep pockets because to them the risk is minimal. To someone like TPJ, it could be the last thing they ever do, however. I do not see it worth the risk.
          • Remember that a woman sued McDonald's because they served her hot coffee, and she won.

            Coffee which was hotter by a significant margin than the generally accepted / legal limit for hot beverage temperatures. That case is completely incorrect to use in this type of discussion, because the woman had a perfectly legitimate case. The coffee was considerably hotter than it should have been for her safety as a consumer. If you're going to pick examples, pick relevant ones. If you can't find relevant ones, perhaps that should tell you something.

            • Coffee which was hotter by a significant margin than the generally accepted / legal limit for hot beverage temperatures. That case is completely incorrect to use in this type of discussion, because the woman had a perfectly legitimate case.

              You are incorrect about the former, and the latter is an opinion (borne out by the result of the case, of course). There is no legal limit for the temperature of such beverages, and what is acceptable differs among people. The whole point was that the patrons complai
              • There is no legal limit for the temperature of such beverages...

                (I know I should keep my mouth shut...) Actually, there is a legal limit, largely dependent on the boiling point of said beverage. To cross this limit, it will no longer be a beverage (in the nominal sense of the word). It's the law, baby!

                --
                The great thing about multitasking is that several things can go wrong at once.