Hi all,
The goal may be duplicate but the means is not.
People learn in different ways, there's no one-size-fits-all, the more
paths to the destination the better.
I remember doing the java trails tutorial and thought it was
particularly good, though others may prefer a book etc.
Well done say I, let the freedom flow.
Tom Cowap
Shlomi Fish wrote:
>Forwarding the message from Simon...
>
> Shlomi Fish
>
>---------- Forwarded Message ----------
>
>Subject: Re: New Website for Perl Beginners: perlmeme.org
>Date: Tuesday 04 October 2005 10:33
>From: Simon Taylor <simon@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>To: advocacy@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>Hello,
>
>Thanks to those who provided feedback to Shlomi's announcement a few days
>back.
>
>I've summarized the various criticisms that people made, along with our
>response.
>
>Randal L. Schwartz
>
>
>
>> Unless it's hidden, I'm not finding any obvious link there to the
>> defacto standard location for Perl beginners, <http://learn.perl.org>.
>> I think this represents broken integrity on your part, since you
>> appear to be trying to replace learn.perl.org, not supplement it, so
>> you're attempting to fracture the community, not enhance it.
>>
>> If you add a prominent link to learn.perl.org, I will withdraw my
>> complaint.
>>
>>
>
>We do reference Simon Cozens Beginning Perl book at learn.perl.org
>but you're correct that the learn.perl.org site is not made prominent
>on perlmeme.org. We can certainly do this.
>
>
>Gavin Henry
>
>
>
>> I think their intentions are great, but what's wrong with:
>>
>> * http://learn.perl.org
>> * http://faq.perl.org
>> * Tutorials
>>
>> They talk about their motivations, but it seems like a big duplicate
>> of effort? I think they need to have a links page mentioning things
like
>> above.
>>
>>
>
>We link to some good perldoc pages at:
> http://perlmeme.org/faqs/references/
>and I think that this is probably the place for us to link to the
>learn.perl.org urls.
>
>
>JupiterHost.Net
>
>
>
>> And its not very well done CGI wise (IE super hackable...
>> didn't you check and untaint the input?)
>>
>> http://perlmeme.org/misc/feedback.html?url=/joema...........
>>
>> Thats pretty limmited in scope but not a good idea for a site that is
>> supposed to be giving out good ideas :)
>>
>>
>
>Well, you win.
>
>Ovid
>
>
>
>> In http://perlmeme.org/start_here/our_motivations.html
there's a lot of
>> talk about dealing with "anti-Perl memes" and, essentially, how to
>> market Perl. Given that, I can only wonder why the site creators
>> didn't bother to contact The Perl Foundation
>> (http://www.perlfoundation.org/)
as the latter is always interested in
>> new volunteers with energy and creative ability who are willing to help
>> out on that very topic.
>>
>>
>
>I've had pleasant dealings with The Perl Foundation at the Open
>Source Developers' Conference, but be honest, it never occured to me to
>talk to them about perlmeme.org
>
>
>
>> And is there any mention of the Perl community? I can't see it there.
>> The site pur****ts to be a resource for "selling" Perl and overcoming
>> the negative reaction many folks have to the language, but the site is
>> little more than a cookbook. How can one market Perl and leave out one
>> of its strongest selling points?
>>
>>
>
>We'd love to sell the Perl community. If anyone here wants to send me
some
>text highlighting the resources that people who are new to Perl should
>know about, we'll ensure it's featured prominently.
>
>
>
>>Oh, and this is bad, just bad:
>> http://www.perlmeme.org/howtos/subroutines/perl_files.html
>>
>> And can you find the runtime errors on this page's code?
>> http://www.perlmeme.org/howtos/using_perl/display_text_message.html
>>
>> And plenty of little bugs and typos here:
>> http://www.perlmeme.org/tutorials/cgi_script.html
>>
>> There's more and nitpicking seems petty but for a site which has the
>> stated goal of addressing the "many irrational anti-Perl memes", it
>> really needs to get things right.
>>
>>
>
>Ouch. You've highlighted some poor quality control there. We've now
>rectified these pages. Thanks for pointing this out.
>
>
>Henning Møller-Nielsen
>
>
>
>> I for one would like any example showing beginners to use
>> 'require FUNCTIONLIB' instead of 'use MODULE' to be
>> removed or edited to be in a style appropriate
>> for Perl 5.
>>
>>
>
>Appreciate your point. The single 'require' example that we have on the
site
>is fine as it stands, but it does beg the question of why we didn't
mention
>"use" in the same place and the im****tant ways it differs... We'll
address
>this.
>
>Regards,
>
>Simon Taylor
>--
>Unisolve Pty Ltd - Melbourne, Australia
>+61 3 9568 2005
>
>-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
|
