On Monday, April 29, 2002, at 11:46 , Robert Beau Link wrote:
[..]
> OK, drieux, you've got me convinced; it's all about perldoc. Your
> delicious semi-psychotic ramblings
Semi? Only Semi???? God god, get me the walker, the dribble
cup, and the CostCo Warehouse family size bottle of Geratol it's
time to put the drieux out to pasture....
> are just the aspect of the perl
> community that makes me cringe at the thought of going back to a M$
> shop.
The core problem with the 'perl community' is that it does not
lack for 'standards' - there are standards for CGI, and for
doing mod_perl, for doing DBI, for doing DBI without a DB,
for forking children, with or without barbee-Queue-Sauce....
[..]
> In my other life I'm a personal
> development trainer, very commited to structuring information suitably
> for a given audience.
Think about the principle problem that you are dealing with here.
People who have 'religious' issues with whether extending BNF
to ABNF actually provided a better descriptive format for generating
RFC's that most people will possibly implement something near towards,
or at least in the general direction of.... Knowing full well that
the IETF standards that will be possited by say M$ will be a subset
of what they are actually planning to implement - so that they can
sell you the 'enhanced' extension thereof....
While on the flip side of that informationGarbaging is the absurdity
of formally closing the HTML standard - because folks basically have
a framework for considering xHtml - the extensible version... since
of course the XML foo showed the way forward to complete information
deconstruction into
<BigFingerQuotes val="Portability" reality=NOT />
Given that the current market vendor believes that OS's have to
have a webBrowser or they can not work....
cf:
http://www.wetware.com/drieux/CS/BIQ/CFH/FMML.html
> perldoc and man and the rest *are* structured
> suitably for a given audience...unix wonks. If you don't have the unix
> head set, if you're not a native speaker of that special dialect then
> man and perldoc and all manner of things are just plain intimidating.
Yes and No.
have you ever tried to deconstruct say "Mil Spec" or any of
the legal documents - that have very stylized and ritualistic
incantations? Let alone the BNF/ABNF formalizations of the
Requisite RFC's????
{ for extra credit, translate anything with BuPers or OpNavInst
as a prefix to the digital sequencer - back into the common
parlance used by modestly educated native speakers of american.
And you will grok 'collateral damage' in ways you did not want to know.}
Or - the problem with bootstrapping people into the coding game,
in perl or any other semi-formalized language - is that they really
needed to understand RegEx to understand the core conceptual
framework in which they will be spending the rest of their lives,
like how to master Regular Expressions....
Self Referentialism is not merely the introspection of objects
seeking to understand themselves - it is the oldest running
joke in software development since Kurt Godel pointed out
that no system of axiomatics based upon arithmetic operators
would provide completeness and closure - but we keep trying
to FlingTheBioMassRecycledGrainProductsParsedByBovines that
we in some way are a 'science' or 'technological' - when all
we are is a collection of wankers who keep patching over the
fact that the 'Incompleteness Theorum' established in 1934
that we would be 'extending' the system with patches as long
as we keep bound to the limitations of axiomatic systems
and arithmetic operators!!!!
But no one yet has any better way to get 'computing' done!
> I hear "Learning Perl" is the best bet for a structured set of
> exercises building in a graduated manner from simple to difficult.
TreeMurderers...
Accept the simpler path -
Seth always come in two's
but which is the master and which is the apprentice
If you know, teach,
if You Don't, Learn.
ciao
drieux
---
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
