Uri Guttman wrote:
"RW" == Raymond Wan <r....@aist.go.jp> writes:
RW> Well, how about this? If A posts a question, B replies but B is "flat
RW> out wrong", then what if expert C replies but not to B's message, but
RW> to A's? Less frustration for C and both A and B learn something
RW> ... and maybe C will even get two "Thank you's" for the price of
RW> one... Seems more productive and less stressful than taking it out on
RW> B, isn't it??
not IMO. B needs to learn the correct way and i have seen many cases
(usenet in particular) where B replies first and suckers (sometimes B is
a troll) A into using the bad code. and even worse A thanks B for their
help! so you have to both followup A's original post and B's bad code.
Well, ok...this is a "special case" of a troll and that happens. Who knows? B
might actually be a Ruby fan and is trying to sabotage the Perl newsgroups. :-)
However, I don't think a troll with such a malevolent intention would admit they
weren't an expert. If the intention is good, B might not only thank C, but also
apologize.
I'm not saying that expert C shouldn't come down on B...I'm saying maybe coming
down on B as the "default" is a bit harsh. Of course, if they're trolling, then
go for it. :-)
RW> As someone who has been both A and B on _this_ very message board (C
RW> -- not yet :-P ), I, for one, am glad that the person C at the time
RW> (sorry, forgot who it was...) didn't take it out on me...
you don't have to necessarily take it out but you do have to correct
them. if they are genuinely trying to help that is nice but helping when
you don't really know the best answer is an issue. this list has plenty
of expert (of ALL levels :) so you don't have to jump in to help if you
are even slightly unsure of yourself. that is one thing you can learn by
lurking more which is always good for new members.
Correct them sure. But, is it straight-forward to say that everyone seeking for
help wants the "best answer"? Especially with Perl when there are multiple
answers, the best answer may be difficult to comprehend to some newbies.
Someone at just a slightly higher level may word the answer in a way that is
understandable.
And what if A tries B's code, fails and asks again and B continues replying?
Ok, A didn't get the "best answer" immediately; but isn't it a bad idea to stop
such discussion? And sure, a few mails later, B gives up and someone else steps
in. Is that a bad thing? C can also do some "lurking" form time-to-time,
right? (NB: I have little sympathy for people who ask a question and say "I
have my homework due tomorrow and need the best answer now." :-) )
Of course, we aren't going to agree on this, but if Perl can have multiple ways
of doing things, then users of Perl surely can have multiple opinions. :-)
Ray
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: beginners-unsubscr...@perl.org
For additional commands, e-mail: beginners-h...@perl.org
http://learn.perl.org/
