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.

use Perl

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

Chicago.pm and conversations about Perl More | Login | Reply

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to use the classic discussion system instead. If you login, you can remember this preference.

No RubyMonks (Score:2)

by djberg96 (2603)

The surprising comment was that ruby-monks and python-monks probably wouldn't work anyway.

A RubyMonks would fail because it would be redundant. There's nothing it does that comp.lang.ruby doesn't already accomplish. Nothing I care about, anyway.
A Perl progammer I met who also does Ruby told me once that PerlMonks was a friendlier version of comp.lang.perl.misc, which I thought was a pretty telling comment.
- Re: (Score:1)
  
  by chromatic (983)
  
  A RubyMonks would fail because it would be redundant. There's nothing it does that comp.lang.ruby doesn't already accomplish.
  
  It works in a web browser, for one--or does the web interface to c.l.r really not make you want to stab yourself in the face with cutlery?
  - Re:No RubyMonks (Score:2)
    
    by djberg96 (2603) on 2007.02.22 10:01 (#53372) Journal
    
    Well, if Google would stop screwing with the interface...
    Anyway, there's also ruby-forum [ruby-forum.com]. There are other Ruby forums out there, too, I think. That's another reason a RubyMonks wouldn't really work - the "market" is already saturated.
    
    Reply to This
    
    Parent

Get More Comments

Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.