On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 16:23:29 -0500, Andres Monroy-Hernandez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If any, I think O'Reilly should be the issuer of those certificates. I > think it would be a nice thing to have for marketing purposes as others > have pointed out.
O'Reilly is too aware of how influential people in the community feel about certification to make that kind of mistake. Else they would have done it a long time ago. If you really want a certificate, go to http://brainbench.com/ and take their test. > Another idea would be to use the PerlMonks ranking number as > certificates :-) Perlmonks rankings are a measure of how much you've participated in Perlmonks, and not how good you are as a programmer. There is very little correlation between how impressed I am with Perl people and their XP rating on Perlmonks. Furthermore when I make a Perl hire, your knowledge of Perl is one of the least important things that I want to know. I want to know how well you know databases, can read documentation, understand various programming concepts - none of which are addressed in a test of how well you know arcane syntax for features that I'm not using. That is, I'd prefer someone with the good taste to not do something like @{[ code here ]} rather than someone who is proud that they know how to interpolate code directly into a string (but probably doesn't realize that they're getting context wrong). (Particularly when using concatenation takes ONE more character, is faster, easier to read, and gets context right.) Cheers, Ben _______________________________________________ Boston-pm mailing list [email protected] http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
