"Aristotle" you are, by your words and deeds in this thread, what was known in my days in school as a bully. Apparently age and so-called maturity has not changed that.
At this point I choose to ignore you publicly and forego further response, because we have already taken up too much of the mailing list's time. If you have anything further to say, you can say it privately. -----Original Message----- From: Aristotle Pagaltzis <pagalt...@gmx.de> Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 02:22:15 +0100 To: Perl Module Authors List <module-authors@perl.org> Subject: Re: Taking another swing [was: New module naming] >* Bob Parker <b...@perldevgeek.com> [2011-11-08 00:30]: >> Clearly you are another fanboy of Shlomi's. > >You found me out. I am two days short of proposing gay marriage to him. > >> * Aristotle Pagaltzis <pagalt...@gmx.de> [2011-11-07 23:50]: >> >* sawyer x <xsawy...@gmail.com> [2011-11-07 12:40]: >> >>This is a case where $a and $b makes absolute sense. It is also the >> >>same case as Perl's sort() function that uses $a and $b to indicate >> >>two values of the same importance. >> > >> >There is no real case in which `my $a` or `my $b` make sense in Perl, >> >only a handful of cases where they don’t make no sense. I think his >> >point was a reasonable one, if minor. >> >> Once again, you too have missed the point. The original post was AN >> EXAMPLE. At now point was it intended to be usable code in which any >> reasonable person would be expected to literally use $a or $b. > >Thanks for pointing it out. I would not have realised this without your >helpful contribution. > >In the real world people learn by copy-pasting code and tweaking until >it seems to do what they wanted. Every code example should be as close >to real working code as possible, ideally *should* be real working code; >or else so broken (by missing declarations and what have you) that it >cannot be made to work accidentally. > >> Shlomi was nitpicking for the purpose of nitpicking > >Hip hip hooray for projection. > >> so as to get his 2￠in there, not for the purpose of contributing to >> the conversation as it his known to do on a regular basis. In other >> words, he was stirring up trouble for no reason. > >No, I believe that was you. You provided no value WHATSOEVER your >comment contained zero technical content, which Shlomi’s at least did, >even if it was off-topic. > >But you had to get your utterly worthless 2￠ in there. > >> If this was anyone else BUT Shlomi, we wouldn't even be having this >> discussion. For whatever reason, you feel the need to defend him >> against "the newcomer" who dares to speak up against the status quo. > >I am not defending anyone. Shlomi was too brash, but then Sawyer was >too, and then finally comes here someone whose grand debut consists in >lashing out. Some entry. Welcome to you too sir. > >> >But the perpetrators of drive-by ad hominems are popular? >> >Particularly ones who come out of the woodworks to beat on the >> >community punchbag after he has already apologized? >> >> There was an apology? > >Start by reading harder next time. > >> >>Worse yet, nobody likes a know-it-all without the who doesn't have >> >>the credentials to back up their b.s. >> > >> >You made a mistake to bring up credentials. >> > >> >His have-to-fix-that attitude has driven Shlomi to pick up the upkeep >> >chores of a whole raft of neglected high-profile CPAN modules, and >> >there are quite a few perl patches to his name. Not all of them have >> >been applied, bless his eager heart :-), but neither have all of them >> >gone unappreciated. >> > >> >That looks like a lot more in credentials than you brought to the >> >table. >> >> Honestly, you don't know me or my credentials. > >No. You just made a point of pointing them out. > >> You have seen exactly 2 posts of mine on this mailing list - the grand >> total my contributions to the list to date. > >You should be proud of yourself! Your track record so far is stellar. > >> The reason I haven't contributed so far is because of back-biting, >> political, personal attacks like you have demonstrated so well here. >> To hell with furthering the cause of the language - let's form cliques >> and screw with those people who disagree with us, regardless of what >> they think. > >More projection. > >Why does the back-biting bother you so much when your grand act of entry >to this list is to turn the dial to 11 on back-biting? > >> I have followed the career of Shlomi over the years since he first >> appeared on the scene. His very first appearances were full of strife >> and controversy. Sure, he may have taken over some projects, but not >> without disagreement and/or opposition. > >I never eulogised him. > >I am just not going to let you get away with justifying your ad hominem >by demonising him. > >> >Sure, Shlomi suffers from overly rigid ideas of how to do things and >> >is too eager to dismiss the “old” way along with all other options. >> >But he isn’t stupid either, and he doesn’t just nitpick but >> >contributes. >> >> No, not exactly. Based on this early postings that were full of >> criticisms and nitpicks of the various perl.org sites, Shlomi had >> PLENTY to say about those sites that certainly qualified as >> "nitpicking". Yes, he has contributed to CPAN. Goodie for him. CPAN >> contributes are not the be all/end all of a person's worth, however. > >Thanks for dismantling my point and missing all essence. > >My point was that he puts his money where his mouth is. > >He wants things a certain way; he works to make that happen. If you >don’t like the way he wants things to be, push back. If he’s badgering >someone who should be encouraged, take the badgered’s side. Lashing out >at him achieves nothing but to turn the lists into the unpleasant places >you made them out to be. > >> >Nor is he is in the habit of flaming people, much less talking about >> >them without knowing who he is talking about. >> >> Based on his previous postings to this and other lists, that's not >> exactly true. > >I’m sure it’s not 100.000% true. > >But I’ve seen him around for years. Where has he been leading his secret >life as someone who attacks people personally? > >> >That’s a lot more than can be said about some people. >> >> That's quite a leap to make from 1 or 2 posts to the list to >> a generalized statement. > >You’ve shown a fair amount of colour in those 2 posts already. > >I’m willing to be reevaluate my picture but first impressions have >rarely let me down. > >> If you don't like me based on your personal experience with me so far, >> then just say so. I'm a big boy, I can take it. > >If this incident is all the presence you show here I won’t remember you >two weeks from now. If you want to be liked it’s up to you to stick >around and post things of value. > >> Based on your responses to me, I don't particularly like you, either. > >I don’t care. Maybe I will in the future if you stick around. > >> >>In this particular case, pretty much everyone clearly understood >> >>that what was given was a GENERIC EXAMPLE, not real code. It didn't >> >>call for code review, comment or criticism on the use of variables >> >>or their naming. What was requested was feedback on the naming of >> >>the MODULE. >> > >> >His point was valid, clumsy though his way of stating it was. The >> >abuse he invited with his clumsiness is out of all proportion for his >> >sin. >> >> As my elders used to say in the days when common courtesy and manners >> were taught as a matter of course, it's not what you say but how you >> say it. > >Your lessons don’t seem to have stuck. > >> He is point was NOT valid. Since anyone with a brain cell in their >> head understood that it was an EXAMPLE > >Anyone with a brain cell in their head never writes about ?anyone with >a brain cell in their head?. That level of polarisation only serves to >drive all reasoned consideration of issues into a ditch. > >> what purpose did it serve to point out that REAL WORLD PROGRAMMING >> does not use $a and $b for lexical variables. > >Because example code is real-world code. Because that is how humans >work. If you are interested in finding out about this, take a look into >HCI, interaction design and usability, and read up on what has made >Excel the most successful programming environment in the world which >even non-programmers manage to use to muddle through their problems. >Read up on Larry’s thoughts of how linguistic concerns intersect with >computer language design. > >> Should Randal Schwartz rewrite the perldoc for the Schwartzian >> Transformation or the core perl team rewrite the sort perldocs to >> eliminate $a/$b > >Preferably. Yes. > >> because some idiot might confuse the examples that include $a and $b >> for real world code? Nope, didn't think so - because most real world >> developers understand the difference between examples and the real >> world. As he should have. > >I’m not in the habit of thinking of people as idiots. That is too >convenient a mental shorthand which lets you write off large swathes >of people instead of going to the trouble of compassion and trying to >empower them. It’s useful to think of people as (mostly at different >times) lazy, impatient and presumptuous which Perl people should know >are actually virtues when properly applied and also short-sighted, >often inevitably. But not as idiots. Even when they are. > >> You can beat a dead horse and continue to attack me. Or you can get >> a clue. > >False dichotomy. You are setting it up so the only reason I can disagree >with you is a personal attack. > >> Other might be afraid of speaking their minds and pissing off the >> powers-that-be in the perl hierarchy. > >More projection. The powers exist primarily in your mind. > >> Not me. > >And consequently your heroism exists only in your mind. > >> I really don’t care if I get a module published on CPAN. > >Why did you bring it up to bolster your supposed credence then? > >I don’t care either anyway. Do whatever makes you happy. Just don’t make >other people unhappy to get there. > >> I subscribe to these lists strictly to keep updated on the latest >> happenings, and as luck would have it I have approximately 180 domains >> to register with. > >Why would I or anyone else care? > >> I have written many perl modules, but have chosen not to publish them >> on CPAN so far because I disagree on a fundamental level with the core >> politics of CPAN and its ruling class. This exchange is but one of the >> reasons why. > >Good luck fighting your imaginary foes. > >-- >Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
