perl [was: in defense of Java, again]
sjansen at buscaluz.org
Fri Jan 27 11:34:06 MST 2006
On Fri, 2006-01-27 at 10:14 -0800, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 10:06:05 -0700, "Shane Hathaway"
> <shane at hathawaymix.org> said:
> > Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> > > Which is the long way of saying, I hope the the distinction between
> > > "putting down Perl" and "putting down Perl programmers" is not lost
> > > here.
> > Well, you put down programmers, not the language, when you said "That's
> > why these days you mostly see sysadmins and other not-really-experienced
> > developers using Perl."
> It's no sin to be inexperienced. We all start that way. Just like me
> and my Pascal.
You honestly don't get it, do you? You're statement can be be reworded
as: "Experienced programmers don't use Perl, Sysadmins do." You've
insulted experienced Perl users (by implying they don't exist). You've
insulted sysadmins (by implying they're all a lesser class of
Contrary to popular misconception, being a geek is no excuse for lack of
social awareness. You can be honest, you can be blunt, you can be
inflammatory. (I'm all of those and worse.) But if you repeatedly insult
people without meaning to, there's something wrong. You need to debug
and resolve the problem. (Or acknowledge and ignore as I usually do, but
then don't be shocked when people get upset.)
Stuart Jansen e-mail/jabber: sjansen at buscaluz.org
google talk: stuart.jansen at gmail.com
:0 # copy & paste for your convenience
/dev/null # /ignore sjansen!*@*
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://plug.org/pipermail/plug/attachments/20060127/f92fc68f/attachment.bin
More information about the PLUG