On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 08:52:04AM -0500, Ben Okopnik wrote: > On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 12:22:46AM -0500, _brian_d_foy wrote: > > 'proven' means just what it means when i said it - to determine the > > truth of a statement. there are plenty of people who claim to be > > Perl programmers or trainers who don't use or teach Perl. some > > of them even write books about Perl. > > > > you gone too far towards the corporate side of things. i wasn't > > using buzzwords. i was speaking English. > > Hmm. Not trying to start a war, just curious; does "proven" mean "vetted by > you"? I'm sure you're amply qualified to judge the quality of instruction, > etc., but this would severely limit the number of possible "proven"s.
Let's peel back the onion a wee bit, shall we? This isn't a difficult issue, nor does it require that we count the number of angels that can fit on the head of a llama. Here is the original quote: On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 01:05:10PM -0800, brian d foy wrote: > everyone on http://www.perl.org/phbs/training.html has > a proven record of training and i would not hestiate to > recommend any of them. i can't be so sure of other companies, > so i don't recommend them. ....clarified here: On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 12:54:19AM -0500, _brian_d_foy wrote: > no. proven just means that you actually teach Perl, which is very > different from will-teach-Perl-if-i-get-paid-to. as far as www.perl.org > goes, you should also be able to satisfy more than just a local > customer base. Given these statements, "proven record of training" in the realm of Perl would mean to me: 1) you've actually trained people before 2) you've taught them Perl 3) both of these statements are verifiable This necessarily discounts those who pass themselves off as "trainers" when in fact they have done little more than flip slides and read them aloud -- something *very* different than standing in front of a group for days at a time, running hands on labs, answering questions on the spot and imparting some skills to that group. This also necessarily discounts those who train, but do not train Perl. That is, they have an a la carte menu of services that includes lots of buzzwords, but the trainers don't actually have competance in all of those areas (at least in Perl, as far as we are concerned). Or, they offer Perl training and pass themselves off as competant, but in fact are not competant (in Perl, as far as as we are concerned). Now, can we *>PLEASE<* stop with the semantic games? It's not that difficult of a problem. I know that brian and I are not the only ones here who have issues with listing "Perl Trainers" who are incapable of locating a syntax error or haven't seen "use strict;" before. (Yes, Virginia, they *do* exist.) Z.
