Yes I see. Actually your statement can be interpreted either way,
based on context. Since I hadn't read the thread for several hours I
forgot which side of the debate you were on. So, when I read this:
"I think that's exactly what some people want you to do. People don't
want to be told that they're lousy coders, and their poor practices have
only been made to work through a special case in the language interpreter."
It sounded like you wanted Jeff to shut up, and that you were in the
group being called lousy coders and you didn't like it. But now I see
you were talking about other people in the nasty way shown all over
this thread.
I don't know if you will fit in the Ruby community because we are
generally a nice bunch of people and your behavior on this thread
hasn't been very nice. In case the life lesson hasn't been taught to
you yet, you attract more flies with honey than with vinegar, so to
speak.
Regards,
Ryan
···
On 12/15/05, Neil Stevens <neil@hakubi.us> wrote:
Actually, I think you should read more carefully what I wrote. The
irony here isn't what you think.
Ryan Leavengood wrote:
I don't know if you will fit in the Ruby community because we are
generally a nice bunch of people and your behavior on this thread
hasn't been very nice. In case the life lesson hasn't been taught to
you yet, you attract more flies with honey than with vinegar, so to
speak.
I never called out anyone in particular, didn't have anyone in mind in
fact, but it's funny how some people are insecure enough that they're
getting offended by what I wrote, and getting so defensive that they
feel the need to lash out in return.
It reminds me of a saying: "If you throw a rock into a pack of dogs, the
dog that yelps loudest is the one that got hit."
···
--
Neil Stevens - neil@hakubi.us
'A republic, if you can keep it.' -- Benjamin Franklin
That's the point you missed. Rubyists don't throw rocks at dogs.
···
On 12/15/05, Neil Stevens <neil@hakubi.us> wrote:
It reminds me of a saying: "If you throw a rock into a pack of dogs, the
dog that yelps loudest is the one that got hit."
I never called out anyone in particular, didn't have anyone in mind in
fact, but it's funny how some people are insecure enough that they're
getting offended by what I wrote, and getting so defensive that they
feel the need to lash out in return.
I'm not sure if anyone lashed out really, just pointed out your
rudeness for your own good. You see, by writing the way you have here,
you have sewn bad will, and any further communication from you will
automatically be tainted by your previous behavior. Your opinion will
automatically be deemed less important than most other people. I'm
sure you don't care, in your infinite wisdom and unfailing purity of
perfect thought, but I figured you should know.
It reminds me of a saying: "If you throw a rock into a pack of dogs, the
dog that yelps loudest is the one that got hit."
That's lovely, LOL.
Ryan
···
On 12/15/05, Neil Stevens <neil@hakubi.us> wrote:
Ryan Leavengood wrote:
<<bunch of snipped stuff about rudeness and such>>
I'm kind of new here, but it seems like debating the quality of one another's rudeness is slightly OT.
Incidentally, I earned my living as a back-end Perl programmer for a couple years early in my career. I wrote literate OO code in Perl. The thing I loved about Perl was that, like a natural language, there were several ways to say the same thing some obvious, some flowery, some a bit too terse. Among the things I did *not* like about Perl were some of the whacky implicit variables like $1, etc, and especially @_. However, I never needed to use them explicitly, because when I wanted them they were always there implicitly (Those who know Perl know what I am saying.)
My point is this: I am (or was) a Perl programmer and I do not like the "Perlish" syntax one bit. I didn't like it in Perl, and I don't like it in Ruby either. However, I object to the notion that Perlishness makes it offensive. Non-obviousness is what makes it offensive. The matcher syntax is much clearer.
···
On 12/15/05, Neil Stevens <neil@hakubi.us> wrote:
Nicely put! 
martin
Not throwing rocks at dogs since 2000
···
Gregory Brown <gregory.t.brown@gmail.com> wrote:
On 12/15/05, Neil Stevens <neil@hakubi.us> wrote:
>
> It reminds me of a saying: "If you throw a rock into a pack of dogs, the
> dog that yelps loudest is the one that got hit."
That's the point you missed. Rubyists don't throw rocks at dogs.
Adam Sroka wrote:
The matcher syntax...
I meant MatchData. Matcher is a Java thing... <<administers self flogging>>
I'm kind of new here, but it seems like debating the quality of one
another's rudeness is slightly OT.
You are right of course, plus I was starting to get hypocritical and
be rude myself.
My point is this: I am (or was) a Perl programmer and I do not like the
"Perlish" syntax one bit. I didn't like it in Perl, and I don't like it
in Ruby either. However, I object to the notion that Perlishness makes
it offensive. Non-obviousness is what makes it offensive. The matcher
syntax is much clearer.
I had a strong dislike for Perl after some bad experiences at one job,
but for some reason the "Perlisms" in Ruby don't bother me as much,
because as a whole Ruby tends to be so much more readable. Like
anything, I think there are times when using the $1 variables is
appropriate, and times when using MatchData is appropriate. To say one
or the other is the only proper way to code Ruby regular expression
matching is getting a little too pedantic.
In the same way I can't control perceived mailing list "rudeness", I
don't think the people in the MatchData camp can control how other
people code (no matter how passionate they are about the topic.)
Especially on a section of Ruby code style that is not really debated
(whereas lots of people will denounce camelCaseMethods etc.)
Anyhow, even this discussion is off-topic for the original post, so
I'm stopping here.
Ryan
···
On 12/16/05, Adam Sroka <adam.s@covad.net> wrote:
