|
Re^4: Perl 11
by stevieb (Canon) on Oct 24, 2018 at 21:15 UTC
|
I trust the diligence and competency of the p5p over a single author who's nature is attack-if-questioned, any day.
That's life in general, generally.
The title of the linked blog post says it all, really.
| [reply] |
|
|
I trust the diligence and competency of the p5p over a single author who's nature is attack-if-questioned, any day.
WRT technical issues, I don't care much about attitude, lack of education or social skills or political correctness. Nonwithstanding the linked blog post being vitriolic, I'd rather want to see the points raised therein disproved. And I'd really like seeing Abigail-II back here, which isn't going to happen, and neither tchrist nor TimToady. Sigh.
perl -le'print map{pack c,($-++?1:13)+ord}split//,ESEL'
| [reply] |
|
|
I'd rather want to see the points raised therein disproved.
Which ones? "p5p are ignorant and incompetent and have been destroying Perl since 2000" isn't a point that can be proven or disproven. On a similar-but-not-the-same note, "Allowing nulls in symbol names in Perl is a security hole, no one is smart enough to see it, take my word for it, I won't show you any working exploit code" isn't a point that can be discussed.
| [reply] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
I guess I have seen occasional relatively recent remarks from Abigail once in a while when I've stumbled into a P5P thread archive, but as far as I can tell tchrist spends his time nitpicking over grammar and etymology at S/O, while timtoady spends his time doing promotion of his new language and resting on his laurels at YAPCs. Like a lot of things about which I have nostalgia, what I miss no longer exists to be gone back to.
The way forward always starts with a minimal test.
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |
Re^4: Perl 11
by LanX (Saint) on Oct 24, 2018 at 23:01 UTC
|
| [reply] |
|
|
I see parallels between both of you.
Reini's smarter and more skilled than I am. I appreciate the compliment.
Other than Chip once (justifiably) calling me out for being a jerk on IRC, I haven't been banned from p5p or even warned.
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |
Re^4: Perl 11
by Anonymous Monk on Oct 25, 2018 at 00:35 UTC
|
I have a lot of respect for both of you (Chromatic and Stevieb) and suspect you're far better informed on these issues, but I feel like Flavio Poletti when he said, "P5P outsider here ... I didn't see abusing, only discussion on technical merits. Is the reference to the CoC actually referring to some other discussion, or maybe to some moderation applied to that thread? I genuinely don't know." in blogs.perl.org/users/rurban/2016/04/the-removal-of-the-lexical-topic-feature-in-524.html (with no reply)
Kicking a genius out of p5p and off blogs.perl.org for technical criticism of other people's work is shameful and deeply offends my understanding of freedom of speech. We would be better off if p5p was a ferocious sharktank of adult concepts rather than a kindergarten of childish hurt feelings. While cooperation is necessary, some competition is also healthy, and justified criticism should lead to self-improvement--and of course that goes BOTH ways (as we see in SOPW every day, or at least, every other day :) On the other hand there are claims of inaccuracies, however the opportunity to justify THAT claim was suspiciously renounced, in the last comment here: blogs.perl.org/users/rurban/2016/04/overview-of-current-maintainer-fails.html
I don't know enough to take a side, except the side of Perl. Maybe he needed time-out like Linus did, or maybe some snowflakes need to stop melting when light hits them. I do know that Reini is a very intelligent, informative and amusing Perl-critic on brutal mode: perl11.org/blog/cperl-is-not-a-religion.html
It would be wonderful to see some sort of reconciliation and reunification of Perl's best minds to help propel it into the 21st century, and beyond. Developments in Perl seems to be approaching a critical mass for a glorious future. I wish Larry would take control of Perl 5 for a bit just to set things straight and heal the community.
Peace, Love & Perl!
| [reply] |
|
|
Kicking a genius out of p5p and off blogs.perl.org for technical criticism of other people's work is shameful and deeply offends my understanding of freedom of speech.
That's not what happened.
We would be better off if p5p was a ferocious sharktank of adult concepts rather than a kindergarten of childish hurt feelings.
I don't understand this hypothetical, because that's not what happened.
I don't know enough to take a side
But you did.
Let's go through a handful of Reini's claims. For example, from Overview of Current Maintainer Fails:
p5p refuses to take bug and security reports
That's nonsense. Easily refuted.
the toolchain is typically the gathering place for all the important people too incompetent to do core
That's an attack, backed up by... what exactly?
I've looked over all my >100 distroprefs patches, and in the end problems are only with ether and schmorp. schmorp at least knows what he is doing and eventually comes up with fixes by himself.
This is inconsistent with the previous approach, but clearly an attack on Karen. It's also backed up by... nothing.
The maintainer doesn't have an idea how compile-time vs run-time works
Same.
It's pretty hard to have faith in someone who decides 90% on the wrong side and only by luck sometimes makes a right decision.
Clearly an attack.
the p5p principles of ruling by incompetence, power and abuse are not tolerated
Same.
I could go on.
maybe some snowflakes need to stop melting when light hits them
I think it's more likely that volunteers don't want to take abuse from someone who refuses to communicate with anything other than abuse. There are only so many patches I'm likely to review if every comment is answered with "you're too stupid and incompetent to ask questions, just merge the patch or you're deliberately destroying something".
But what do I know, I'm only (as you say) far better informed on these matters.
| [reply] |
|
|
I could go on.
Of course you could; but what for?
IMHO the best attitude ist to filter out abuse by keeping in mind that they are talking to their own anger, and keep the bits that matter.
I think it's more likely that volunteers don't want to take abuse from someone who refuses to communicate with anything other than abuse.
Granted, but even somebody with Tourette syndrome might have something useful to say. As the linked article tells, it doesn't adversely affect intelligence.
edit: I'm not saying nor believing anybody has tourette or any other disorder; I'm not skilled to diagnose nor could I do anything about it, if that where the case. Talking only about my attitude wrt abusive remarks.
perl -le'print map{pack c,($-++?1:13)+ord}split//,ESEL'
| [reply] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why charcterize criticism as an "attack"? Naming and shaming subjects of criticism is a venerable intellectual tradition. An attack implies something quite violent, or unreasonable, but these are merely critiques. He's like the Yelp of p5p.
the toolchain is typically the gathering place for all the important people too incompetent to do core
That's an attack, backed up by... what exactly?
That's an attack? It sounds like truth to me. When I first read that statement it was like looking in a mirror, because I would definitely be gathering on the toolchain with my fellow incompetents wrt the core.
p5p refuses to take bug and security reports
That's nonsense. Easily refuted.
But that's not the only fork of Perl
done for the same reasons:
"Here it finally is, stableperl, an attempt to restore perl stability and compatibility to the level mentioned in the official perl policy."
"It is also an attempt to fix some of the more obvious bugs that affect many programs and which the perl 5 porters refuse to fix, foremost hash performance and data corruption during global destruction."
"Lastly, and most theoretically, it is a safeguard against perl 5 porters breaking perl 5 to the point where it is no longer usable - when or if that happens, stableperl can be use to achieve independence."
blog.schmorp.de/2015-06-06-a-stable-perl.html
I think it's more likely that volunteers don't want to take abuse from someone who refuses to communicate with anything other than abuse. There are only so many patches I'm likely to review if every comment is answered with "you're too stupid and incompetent to ask questions, just merge the patch or you're deliberately destroying something".
If that was indeed the case then we're on the same page. I just find it odd that "the bad guys" who left p5p to fork Perl are fixing bugs and innovating far beyond what p5p offers, if their critique is completely untrue. I curse p5p every time I have to fix something they broke, and Larry's own son had to roll his own too: github.com/quietfanatic/notebook/blob/master/lib/cgi.pm
Thank you for taking the time to fill in some of the blanks.
| [reply] |
|
|
|
|
> reunification of Perl's best minds to help propel it into the 21st century
The lesson I learned in many years of participation in various fields of "voluntary work" is that it's often not the quality of the minds, nor their good intention, nor the amount of sacrifice they are willing to make which determines the outcome of group dynamics.
Sometimes the system is just broken.
Just compare how Chromatic is nowadays spreading much vitriol on Perl 6 personal, after being one of their poster boys.
Nevertheless I'm trying to judge his posts here on a technical level. I'm assuming that he is somehow desperate about how the system failed.
So maybe we should try judging cPerl without going ad hominem?
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |
|
|