Talk:Perl/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 →

Contents

Opinion section links

Does anyone really think this was a good reversion? Audrey Tang told me about the things Fish contributed to Perl 6, and even if the author description needs to be changed, the "it doesn't say anything interesting" complaint in the edit summary doesn't say much. Looks like a well written critique to me. -Barry- 06:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... the link I mention above that was reverted was a pro-Perl link, but the diff page made it look like it's from the con section. I was thinking about the con link with all the sections, which looked impressive. I added the pro link mainly to balance things out. -Barry- 03:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
-Barry-, honestly I'm not sure that it's possible at this point to distinguish the value of your individual edits on this page as opposed to your overall campaign to modify the article to suit a personal sense of the worth of the language. The impact of your advocacy of other languages; attempts to portray Perl in a negative light; add flawed data to the page; your refusal to accept the feedback of other editors; and so on are becoming highly disruptive. You have been pushing your point long enough. Please stop, and consider contributing to articles about which you can be more neutral. Thanks. -Harmil 22:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Ooo...that sounds really bad. Maybe you should be more specific and post that in the relevant thread so we could really get into whether my edits are bad. You probably already know about those threads, so I guess you just want to change the subject and bash me some more. Based on prior discussions, the odds are I still think my edits are good for the article. If there's something in particular that you think I shouldn't have changed, you're not making that clear, but I'm really not interested in reading your POV any more. I don't like associating with biased hypocrites. I honestly don't remember what you've said on this talk page, but I'm referring to this, on my talk page, which I responded to. -Barry- 22:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Since we've been over those points many times before, I'm just going to assume this is trolling on your part. You have exceeded even my ability to assume any shred of good faith. Restore that faith if you wish, but otherwise, I'll just continue to review edits to Perl from all editors. -Harmil 16:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

More bias by Scarpia

In this revision, Scarpia removed the related links subsection of the Con section for no reason. His edit summary addresses his other reversions: "removing unverifiable IRC discussion. It's irrelevant what a single person says, even if he is a famous author. The commerce of Perl is irrelevant to the language itself"

BS.

Randal's nickname is registered on Freenode and everyone knows it's him. It's registered on Wikipedia too. On my talk page, putting himself in the position of an uninvolved observer, he said that he probably made the comments in frustration after a dispute with someone. Similar to how Scarpia put himself in the place of an observer when he denied knowing what his own slides were about. I apparently have a knack for bringing out the third person in people. I wonder if they make a condom for that.

Anyway, Randal's in the Perl business and probably wants to keep a decent relationship with O'Reilly and/or doesn't want to make it look like Perl's popularity is declining. If Scarpia thinks that Randal really doesn't believe what his own fingers typed in IRC -- about Perl not being interesting to O'Reilly any more -- he should add that to the article, but don't remove relevant information!

"The commerce of Perl..." -- I guess that refers to O'Reilly's interest in Perl. O'Reilly losing interest fits in the Con section because it's about Perl's popularity declining, and if you want to have useful skills and be able to find a good selection of people who could maintain your script in the future, you'll care about that. The article isn't just about functions and modules and the scientific stuff.

Scarpia, some of the editors here may not want me around, but I'm here for Wikipedia, not for Perl, and I believe you're a detriment to Wikipeda and even to those wanting to learn about Perl.

Adapted from Billy Madison: Everyone who's read the Perl article after your edits is now dumber for it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul." -Barry- 08:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

That edit was a good edit. Please refrain from adding your Anti-O'Reilly bias to the Perl article. Thanks! Steve_p 14:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. I'll keep an eye out for such "bias removal" when I have time. -Harmil 16:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
So tell me what's wrong with the external link, or anything else! Say something! The link is anti-perl, but it's in the Con section! This was the entry that was reverted:

Related links

-Barry- 23:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I just read about half of that site. The intro is substantially blogish and off-topic for "what's wrong with perl", but hey, it's an intro. The complaints about the documentation seem off-topic and almost whiny at times..feels like "the official docs suck and I don't feel like buying better ones, therefore the languages itself is bad". At most, does any of this speak to more than just "perl has a steep learning curve"? DMacks 01:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

And in all honesty, what language does not have a steep learning curve nowdays? If you want flexibility and functionality it comes at a price of complexity. I think gone are the days when any modern language is unnecessarily difficult to learn for no other reason than its the lanugage (as opposed to its paradigm or specific target technology). Sure it may be hard to read due to syntax, but the concepts are not new. Enigmatical 01:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I just read the Fish article—all of it. There is nothing really bad about it, but I don't see that it brings enough value to the Perl page to justify a link. It is long, somewhat rambling, and it is hard in many places to work out what the author is really saying or advocating. As best I can tell, his main points are

  • Perl is a great language
  • Learning Perl is hard
  • Newbies are liable to get flamed for asking elementary questions on IRC
  • We should write on-line documentation and tutorials—the more the better
  • Authors of introductory texts should make their books available on-line

And for all that, I can't say that it is an anti-Perl page. In particular, it doesn't support or illustrate the views presented in the Perl#Con section. So I can't see a case for linking to it from the Perl page. Swmcd 06:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The link is only one of the several things that need to be put back in the Con section. This will likely go to mediation if all of the content isn't restored or the POV header isn't restored. Anyone reverting my POV heading is a vandal IMO, considering my points, and should be banned from Wikipedia.

About the link, the first two editors who actually made an argument about the article say it's anti-perl. Swmcd says it's not. I say it is. That's three against one. Here's the TOC:

..............

Table of Contents 1. Me as a Perl Newbie

2. The Story of Mel

3. The Situation Today

Concentration of Effort and Elitism

Lack of Adequate Online Resources

Lack of Adequate Mailing Lists

Substandard Standard Documentation

Too Much Hubris

4. What's the threat?

5. What we should do about it?

Independant Activitity

Become your biggest Perl Guru

Treat Beginners Nicely and Help Them

Think about Usability Issues

Create Archives of Perl Code and Documentation

Don't be afraid to charge money or say no

Revamp of the existing resources

6. Conclusion

..............

Read the section titles. Title 5 says "What should we do about it?" It obviously implies that problems were mentioned previously. -Barry- 12:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Before you try to misread and misuse what I wrote any further, -Barry-, let me state clearly and unambiguously that I feel that the link does not belong in the article. DMacks 14:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
If you think that the Fish page supports or illustrates negative opinions of Perl, then add a direct quote from the page to the Perl#Con section, and link the page as the source of the quote. Then people can decide
* whether the quote is interesting, informative, and relevant
* whether Shlomi Fish is sufficient authority for a quote in the Perl article
Swmcd 15:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Article removed from Wikipedia:Good articles

This article was formerly listed as a good article, but was removed from the listing because it no longer complies with good article criteria 4 (neutral point of view) and 5 (stability)

-Barry- 04:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem of NPOV is largely under control as reasonable editors revert edits in Barry's avowed campaign to discredit Perl and people associated with it. His extreme social difficulties here and in other Perl communities has fueled obsession with the destruction of Perl, despite the input of many editors otherrwise. Barry has not operated in good faith, and his continued participation is detrimental to the Perl article on Wikipedia. Scarpia 05:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

This is the most outrageous thing I've seen in a long time. User:-Barry- comes along and tries to inject POV into Perl, and upon failing removes Perl from the Good Articles list because his revert wars have resulted in instability.[1] Amazing! I have to wonder at what point this becomes an outright bannable offense. -Harmil 05:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Scarpias use of the word "vandalism" to describe the inclusion of a POV tag to be a bit extreme and certainly something which has a specifically non-neutral POV (which is exactly what the tag was put there to indicate). Enigmatical 05:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
If you are agreeing with me, don't. I'm talking about the actions of User:-Barry-. Review the history of his edits. He started off with glaring inaccuracy and POV, and has slowly tried to back it off and sneak in his (admitted) POV anywhere he can. He's resorted to using other pages, templates, and even de-listing Perl from the good articles list [2] with his own revert-wars with several editors as justification. I agree with User:Scarpia that tagging the entire article as POV because he doesn't think that his POV is being represented in a sub-sub-section (Opinion / Con), after revert warrning against all comers is an act of vandalism. Tag the section and be specific if you want to get anywhere with that so that we can come to a consensus on the specific changes (if any) needed to resolve the dispute. Sadly, -Barry- has not, as yet, been interested in such resolution. -Harmil 05:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
The choice of POV template is arbitrary sometimes. A POV template in the opinion section without an explanation looks like it's just telling people there's opinion there rather than fact, which is a no-brainer since it's called the opinion section. I needed to add an explanation to the template, and that's only available in a top-of-page template.
"Barry's avowed campaign to discredit Perl and people associated with it" I'd like to see a quote that shows me avowing that. -Barry- 05:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
-Barry-, you know as well as I that you have been POV-pushing and specifically targetting well known Perl contributors since you started editing this article.
  • You have attempted to disrupt the Wikipedia articles of well-known Perl "personalities" (side note: the justification of an action by refering to barnstars that you put on your own user page is beyond silly) [3]
  • You moved the "Humor" section up above all other links, and re-titled it "references" with the edit summary "Did a bunch of good stuff" [4]
  • You edited in "co-" in front of "author" in reference to a popular Perl author who has both written and co-written Perl books with the summary "Demoting Randal." [5]
  • Your injections of anti-perl rant links included articles where the author described his drinking to the point of incoherence WHILE writing the rant. [6]
  • You have openly antagonized and POV-pushed your python bias in edit summaries. [7]
  • You have used your own edit wars as justification for removing Perl from the Good Articles list [8]
  • And when you couldn't make any progress on Perl, you branched out [9]
This is wanton vandalism, POV-pushing, and violation of WP:POINT. -Harmil 06:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
"I will be taking whatever action I deem reasonable to hurt O'Reilly. I'm not limiting it to not buying their books." -- http://www.perlmonks.org/?node_id=323467 Steve p 18:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
1. About disrupting "personalities": Was a response to an argumentative question about why my opinion matters. I don't see my actual opinion there as being a disruption.
2. About moving Humor: No I didn't. I moved links from the humor subsection of the external links section to a newly created "Related links" subsection in the Fun with Perl section. And more good stuff.
3. About Randal being an author: When it was reverted, I explained in an edit summary that adding the "co" was consistent with Wikipedia's article on Randal when referring to Perl books. If he's written more than one Perl book by himself, the co should be removed.
4. About drunk blogger: If you read that much of it and still think it's justified to pick on that one sentence, there must be some bias award for you. It was a long, well written article with many responses, including the first, which starts off with "Another terrific essay Steve. I'm citing your blog to potential new-hires as another reason to work at Amazon."
5. About Python being better than Perl: In AN edit summary, but only because Python really is better than Perl.
6. About removing article from good articles list: It's just as much your war, and I happen to be the good guy. Anyway, rules are rules, and I cited two valid reasons for this no longer being qualified as a good article.
7. About branching out: Thanks for linking to my edit summary with my explanation. There's more on that article's talk page. So, what's the problem exactly?
-Barry- 08:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
"It's just as much your war" Not at all. I have sought the consensus of the editors on this page; I have not tried to inject my own opinion; I have not tried to re-tool the article to my own preferences; and I have contributed compromises (such as the performance comparison section that I wrote and you reverted) where I did not always feel that a compromise was required.
Of the rest of the points, I concede that on #2, I mis-read the diff. I still don't think it was a particularly helpful edit, nor in the spirit of the rest of the article, but that's a preference, and you had not done what I thought you had. The rest of the points you make I would contest in two ways: 1) they are mostly factually inaccurate (the drunk blogger mentioned several times that he was drinking, and even made a joke out of it, and also referred to his writing as a rant; you have asserted that you are anit-perl and pro-python several times in several ways here, on your talk page and in the edit summary linked above; and so on), but 2) the overall tone of your response to this and every other criticism dismisses, as you have been doing from the start, the contributions or thoughts of any other editor in favor of your own opinions ("Python really is better than Perl", "I don't see my actual opinion there as being a disruption", etc).
I want to appologize. I appologize for the fact that you have been mistreated by some. I appologize for the fact that your contributions aren't meeting with the consensus, since I know how awful that can feel. I would like to see you contribute positively. I do, however, think that you need to walk away from Perl-related things for a while and get some perspective. Why don't you give us time to put Perl back into the state that it was in when you found it (that is, a "Good Article" according to Wikipedia's standards). If you insist on just charging forward with revisions to this and related pages, other authors like myself who would like to work with you as a peer, have no chance to do so, and we are left feeling as if you simply want to vandalize the article(s) of a language to which you have professed a dislike -Harmil 21:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Where's the index on the talk page?

Where's the index on the talk page? -Barry- 08:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Earle Martin had tried to use footnotes earlier and that removed the table of contents for some reason. I've changed the <ref> tags to parentheses. Imroy 08:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
It was a straight C&P of material out of the main article which included footnote links. I don't know why it broke the TOC. -- Earle Martin (talk, contribs) 10:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Same problem with the main article. -Barry- 08:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I went back through the history until the TOC reappeared, and checked the diff. The only thing that stood out was the <ref> tags. When I removed them the TOC showed up again. Weird. Imroy 11:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I was on #wikipedia on IRC and it was a known issue today. It's been resolved. -Barry- 11:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
This might explain it in more detail. Jude (talk) 11:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

I'm the new mediator for Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-05-23 Perl. I've created a page at Talk:Perl Mediation to separate the mediation from the rest of this. jbolden1517Talk 15:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  • To support this, let it be known that interference with the mediation process is a form of trolling. Furthermore, people should not conduct personal attacks. We're working to build an encyclopedia here; let's keep this focus in mind. --Durin 12:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Perl's OO model influenced by Python

In the Influenced by area in the infobox, this should be mentioned (that Python influenced Perl). Should there be a footnote to specify how, since it was probably minor? -Barry- 21:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Please add it :), although I don't think any additional footnote is needed that it only influenced the Perl 5 OO. Just cite the source as it isn't common knowledge. Steve p 22:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and add C++ as well. Steve p 23:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Are you sure it was minor? I once heard Larry say that the Python OOP system ad seemed prety good to him, so he ripped it off entire. -- Dominus 22:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

-Barry- I think it was that added this, but I fail to see how perl was influenced by python, when the first version of perl was released 4 years before the first version of python was. Python wasnt even in the planning in 1987 when perl was released... I think its the other way around? http://www.levenez.com/lang/history.html#04 -- Villahj Ideeut 22:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

See this from IRC. The first version of Perl wasn't influenced by Python. Only the first OO version. -Barry- 22:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
What part of "[IRC is] not [an] acceptable reference to back up the inclusion of proposed material" (as phrased so well below by Ideogram) do you not get, Barry? Seriously, people have been hitting you around the head with various phrasings of this same statement and you just don't seem to understand. NOT. ENCYCLOPEDIC. Hello? -- Earle Martin [t/c] 06:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Hey if you're going to use me as a stick to beat Barry around the head with, try to be nice about it :-). Ideogram 07:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
The semi-off-the-recordness of IRC should be considered, but the nature of this information, the context, the person it comes from, and the fact that the source's nickname is registered, and the fact that the chat room is logged to a public webpage that the source knows about, make it an acceptable reference. And in case you hadn't noticed, two people above said it should be added without even a footnote. -Barry- 14:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
If you're referring to me, please note that I did not suggest adding anything, with or without footnotes. -- Dominus 14:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Simetrical did say that a publically logged IRC room is acceptable. I defer to his greater experience in this matter. Given that, I tend to agree with Barry that the material should be included. Ideogram 14:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
For simple statements of fact, I don't see where IRC is harmful. Larry stated Python and C++ influenced him with Perl. I don't see the harm.
Trying to use IRC as a source of reliable opinion is where IRC's failings come across. People often say tenuously supported things in off the record IRC rants. Steve p 14:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Right, the problem is one of context. This is the same problem Barry has had in several contexts: Randal's statement about ORA, brian's saying Benchmark.pm "sux," and so on: no matter where you get the information, it has to be considered within context, and an offhand opinion on a slide or in IRC really makes the comment not worthwhile. I see no harm with this particular case, though, since it's a statement of fact, and no one is questioning either the fact cited, nor the source. So it seems fine to me. That said, I don't think this really is too useful, since as Barry notes, he doesn't describe in what way the influence was manifested. I think a better source is warranted, not because this is IRC or otherwise unreliable, but because it is particular devoid of useful information. Pudge 17:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for being civil, Pudge. Ideogram 19:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Pudge, I'm specifically questinging the facts involved. Python's object model came along years after Perl's. What Perl adopted from python was a specific bit of external code gluing technique. This does not touch on the object model of Perl. Now again, here is the problem with IRC. No one is composing their thoughts carefully for IRC. No one is sitting down to crank out a thesis on the nature of Perl OO in IRC. It's chat, not some sort of publication that's been fact-checked. I've said things that are just tragically wrong on IRC, but I shrug it off. I assume that a) I'm not going to find the person later to correct what I said and b) that person has probably gotten the right answer by now. There is no way in which IRC is a reasonable basis for an encyclopedic article about Perl. None, and any fact extracted from IRC should be considered wrong, damaging and misleading until proven otherwise. -Harmil 20:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it's true that Python's object model postdated Perl's. I believe that the first OOP system in Python dates from Python 1, which was released in the early 1990s; Perl's object model was introduced in Perl 5, in 1994. -- Dominus 16:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Harmil, this is why I said that I think this should be left off without a better source that explains what Larry meant. We can argue all day about what he meant, but we do not know, and thus we are just bound to create more potential for misinformation than information. Pudge 17:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

(outdenting) IRC is definitely an inferior source, but I do think it is better than nothing. Actually, rather than try to argue it out here, I would feel much more confident appealing to a larger group for a consensus. Ideogram 20:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the guidelines regarding self-published sources largely apply, not only to IRC, but to blogs, journals, Usenet, wiki's, etc. My feeling is that simple statements of fact on IRC and elsewhere may be used if the person is notable, discussing their field, and that their actual identity may be verified.
Statements of opinion, however, are not reliable on IRC and should be used with caution elsewhere. In thinking about it, opinions on IRC are about as reliable as a single sentance essay question answer. There is a statement of opinion, but rarely evidence or arguments to support the opinion. Readers are left without anything to base their own opinion on. That makes them unacceptable as they provide a POV without arguments or evidence. Opinions and facts of any source from non-notables should always be avoided. As mentioned in the link above, if its important, someone else will be discussing it.
There has also been some discussion regarding who is notable within the Perl community. Some argue that having commit access makes you an expert. I would argue that it doesn't. Persons with commit access often work on specialized areas, such as specific ports and features that don't always give them a complete picture. Possibly, they may be considered experts in their specific areas, but any quotes from these committers may also be available from a better source, such as a Pumpking or Larry himself. In the Perl 6 world, the "@Larry" group would be the best sources, with others being much less valuable as there are many inactive commiters.
I think if we carefully follow these guidelines and discuss sources that may be borderline cases, the discussions will remain civil. Adding any source to a page just because it supports an argument is unacceptable here as it is throughout Wikipedia. Steve p 14:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

brian d foy on percentages and the TIOBE data

Brian shows how using percentages can distort statistics - Don't compare percentages:

Percentages remove information to make things easier to see, but they aren't there to be compared to percentages from another measurement. If the total number stays the same, the trend in percentages might have meaning, but if I don't report the total size, the percentages don't have enough information for me to compare them across measurements.

Yet more reason to keep links to that deceptive information off of Wikipedia - any article. Imroy 11:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Any particular reason you're not discussing that in this section of the mediation page? We've been focusing on the Tiobe data there.
Anyway, I don't agree with brian d foy, and I wonder if someone can provide another source for that belief or if you can tell me how brian d foy is qualified to know such a thing. The mediator lists several areas of mathematics as his areas of expertise. The mediation page would be a much better place for this.
I probably don't have any more experience with this than brian d foy, but I don't think you need the same total number. Depending on the situation, you may know the total number for each percentage being compared is approximately equal, and if both total numbers are large and account for, say, over 90 percent of a random sampling of people in an opinion comparison between two countries, then the percentage comparison could be accurate.
In Earle Martin's revision of the Tiobe data, his edit summary says "This TIOBE stuff is non-scientific and not worthy of a reference." Whether it's worthy of a reference is addressed on the mediation page too, by me:
Statistical inferences can be drawn from the Tiobe data too, and the Tiobe data is cited in several journals and books. For example, chapter 4 of Transforming IT education: Promoting a culture of excellence says:
"Postgraduate students are generally aiming to extend their current skill set and diversify their employment options, and most likely want to acquire programming skills they can put into practice immediately. This factor directed the language selection toward one of the languages currently popular in the "real world". According to the TIOBE Programming Community (TPC) Index (TIOBE Programming community index for March 2004, n.d.), the top three most popular languages currently in use, as at March 2004, are Java, C and C++. Java and C++ have both declined in their popularity over the last 12 months, whereas the use of C has slightly increased."
So stop hunting for a group of supporters for something that's not even in the article any more, and stop trying to get people to revert the Tiobe data if it's added again by misleading them, or whatever you're doing, and discuss this in mediation. -Barry- 12:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Nobody tried to get me to do anything. I was acting on the same principle I apply to every page I edit: increase signal, reduce noise. When somebody demonstrates conclusively that counting search engine hits is a scientific method producing verifiable quantitative results, then I'll accept that TIOBE results belong on Wikipedia. -- Earle Martin [t/c] 22:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Two quick points...First, the article contains no references to Perl. Second, although they mention the TIOBE index, a large portion of the article is then used to explain why to choose C# as a first programming language over C, C++, and Java, which all ranked higher. If anything, it is an incedible criticism of the TIOBE index, explaining factors that they considered important and not blindly following what is more "popular". I'd hardly consider that a ringing endorsement of the TIOBE index. This is yet another reason to exclude the TIOBE data. Steve p 00:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, since Barry has decided to beat the dead horse some more in his seemingly endless quest to discredit Perl, I decided to spend a little time looking at this thing he's linked to.
Barry, Barry, Barry. You're attempting to justify a "method" based on search results with... search results. Let's apply the "number of search results is indicative of popularity" method here, then. Your "scholarly" quote comes from the "Informing Science Press". That august institution has all of 158 hits on Google. Searching Google Scholar for TIOBE gets... 50 hits. Some of which have something to do with stage musicals, and others molecular biology, and most of the remainder which are actually talking about the same TIOBE are articles written by students. So they don't exactly seem to have set the academic world on fire.
You're really scraping the bottom of the barrel here, man. Give it a rest, it's embarassing. -- Earle Martin [t/c] 22:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)