>>>>> "RW" == Raymond Wan <r....@aist.go.jp> writes:
RW> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 13:28, Uri Guttman <u...@stemsystems.com> wrote: >>>>>>> "NA" == Nathan Arthur <nart...@rainskit.com> writes: >> NA> from books/tutorials, from this list, and by just writing it. I spent >> NA> a bunch of time with online tutorials and books before really getting >> NA> started, so most of my interest in this list is about "real-life >> NA> examples of perl" rather than "learning to program". >> if you spent any time with the typical perl tutorial on the net, you >> wasted it. maybe 3 or so of them are decent, the rest are garbage. RW> Saying the other tutorials are garbage is quite harsh and a bit RW> disrespectful to the authors who presumably meant well and didn't do RW> it to sabotage Perl's reputation. Maybe they aren't helpful to the RW> majority of people, but they may help a few people. when they are full of mistakes, wrong coding ideas, bad writing, no connection to the perl community, etc. etc. there are dozens of them like this. i have reviewed many on usenet (search google). RW> Thanks to Google, those top 3 you mention will probably be ranked at RW> the top, so the so-called "garbage ones" aren't going to negatively RW> affect many people. not at all. google doesn't always show the best ones as there are so many. i don't go searching for them. on usenet or other places (including here) newbies will claim they are using some site to learn perl. i go there to check it out and i get sick. >> the formatting wars you are whining about are important. communication >> is the goal here and if everyone posted however they wanted, not much >> would happen. there are rules to email/usenet and they were created long >> ago in ancient days and they are still valid. we read top to bottom so >> post that way. we don't need to see the old emails fully quoted so edit >> them (that rule came out of actual needs for less storage and >> bandwidth. even though that isn't important anymore it is still a better >> way to write emails). RW> Yes/no. They are important, but one should realize that there are RW> varying levels of adherence to such rules. Should we expect a mailing RW> list to beginners to adhere to such posting rules or even coding rules RW> as well as, let's say, the developers of Perl6? not adhering when the first get here. adhering AFTER they are told about netiquette and email quoting styles. there is a difference. >> the rules are those who contribute and help, the make the rules. lurkers >> can jump in but their voices are usually discounted. it is that way >> since otherwise it would become lord of the flies in perl. RW> No. What makes this list are the beginners. Without them, there is RW> no list -- or the list would be very different. And many of them are RW> lurkers who jump in, post a question, and jump out. But, if the have RW> a good impression from the replies from the question they asked, they RW> might come in again months later. That's how the community can grow. RW> If we leave it to just the people who "contribute and help", then it's RW> no longer a list for beginners. It's for the contributors to post RW> among themselves. you didn't get my point. the answers come from the core regular experts. the questions from the beginners. so the experts make the rules. if the newbies made the rules, nothing would get done. this has happened in every other forum in network history. you need rules (both technical and social) for this to work well. there is no way around it. uri -- Uri Guttman ------ u...@stemsystems.com -------- http://www.sysarch.com -- ----- Perl Code Review , Architecture, Development, Training, Support ------ --------- Gourmet Hot Cocoa Mix ---- http://bestfriendscocoa.com --------- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: beginners-unsubscr...@perl.org For additional commands, e-mail: beginners-h...@perl.org http://learn.perl.org/
