HI Randal, Although not in the Perl culture, I have indeed seen a great deal of cargo cult thinking in my years, and I fully agree that such consciousness is a Very Bad Thing.
On a quick skim of lwpcook, I would also tend to agree that this is a good source of first reference to those utilities. In particular, the equanamity with which the two approaches were presented was appropriate to the distinctions in taste they represent. I also strongly agree that proposing any *ONE***WAY* to do something is less than helpful. I still differ on the learning aspects of this. I feel that the second example is better production code, while the first is better for learning about the use of perl on the cgi. Certainly it is more concise to send all the parameters in the call, but the earlier example gives the student a better idea of what is going on. No, I do not believe it necessary to start students out in assembler--unless their focus is in the electronics engineering aspects of computing. Programming as we practice it starts at a different level, where we generally assume the underlying system to be ready for our source. Logical primitives, though, are another thing entirely, They are far from superfluous to the programming art. They are, in fact, intrinsic. Therefore I do believe that C and C++, with their rigorous type-specificity and structured organizational schema, serve better as entry languages for new programmers. When students have graduated to templates through a natural development process, they will be much more ready to appreciate, and use intelligently, the tools that Perl provides. The C compiler is like a Sensei, a stern, but fair taskmaster that demands exactitude of the student and firmly checks any incorrect move, but with clear instructions as to what the error was, and where it occured, and with a clearly defined set of rules which must be followed for success. So far, I have found the Perl interpeeter to be downright capricious by comparison. An old friend of mine, a long-time C programmer who had recently experienced a religious conversion to Perl, explained to me that the language had an incredible assoermwnr of features that programmers like him had always wished for. I can see it. I just think one can appreciate it more when they have developed the hunger for it through a natural process. Think about the debates a few years back about the use of calculars in mathematics. We were told that this was just fine, that we needn't worry about simple arithmetic skills, and should let kids focus on higher-order thinking whilke the calculator took care of the "drudge work". Sounded great, in theory. Problem was, without the rigors of basic arithmetic, students never developed the skills of ordered thinking necessary to understand the high-order concepts. So we now have honor students entering college without having completely mastered decimals and fractions. In my view, this is the very epitome of cargo-cultism. Doesn't the cargo cult represent that non-critical adulation of the artifacts of a sophisticated culture, a worship of little beads all glopped together to produce Magic--without penetration into what it is about those beads, or their synergy, that give them this potency? In my view, the best antidote to this is some exposure to causality, to the understanding that these things works because mutually recognized tokens are exchanged within a protocol that gives them their meaning. Joseph . "Randal L. Schwartz" wrote: > >>>>> "R" == R Joseph Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > R> Hi Randal, > R> I must take issue with you here. > > And therefore, you misunderstood my purpose. > > You have not *seen* the amount of cargo-cult c**p that I've seen > in advising people about Perl over 13 years. > > Maybe it's interesting to know how it works underneath. > The source code to the concise way of doing it is readily available. > > But when the long way to do it is offered as "the solution", I must > take issue. That c**p code will be built-on, wasting the time and > energy of many people reinventing the wheel needlessly -- those who > just want to get that job done... not learn the stuff underneath it. > > Using your argument, we shouldn't even code in Perl. Make them > use C, or assembler. Then they'll *really* know how it works. > > No, not me. Sometimes, getting the task done by leveraging off of the > work of others is the *right* thing. > > -- > Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/> > Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. > See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training! > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
