FormMail Problem

G

Gunnar Hjalmarsson

Anno said:
You seem to take this as inexplicable random hostility,

Hostility: yes, inexplicable or random: no.
but there's a history to it.

I know *that* there is a history to it, even if I don't know (or care)
about the details.

What I think you and other 'gurus' should consider is that many
beginners don't know anything about those disagreements from almost 10
years ago. Accordingly, comments such as the above don't serve any
useful purpose. Instead they may cause confusion and hurt the
credibility of the regulars here, preventing beginners from listening
when you want to say something really important.
 
A

Anno Siegel

[mostly snipped]
What I think you and other 'gurus' should consider is that many
beginners don't know anything about those disagreements from almost 10
years ago. Accordingly, comments such as the above don't serve any
useful purpose.

The purpose is to dissuade people from using the substandard Perl coming
from Matt's archives to this day, running it or more importantly imitating
it. That's reason enough for me.

Anno
 
G

Gunnar Hjalmarsson

Anno said:
The purpose is to dissuade people from using the substandard Perl coming
from Matt's archives to this day, running it or more importantly imitating
it. That's reason enough for me.

Then call their attention to the fact that there are more up-to-date and
better alternatives to Matt's scripts at
http://nms-cgi.sourceforge.net/scripts.shtml

That's all there needs. Simple, accurate and credible.

It's high time that the Perl community gets cured from the Matt Wright
phobia. ;-)
 
T

Tad McClellan

I have noted several such unnecessary threads that you've originated.

Everybody gets to post whatever they want to say, "necessity"
does not come into it.

One person is free to call it crappy code.

Another person is free to call it merely brown and smelly,,
pointing out that that isn't truly "crappy".

And off we go...

Hostility: yes, inexplicable or random: no.


I know *that* there is a history to it, even if I don't know (or care)
about the details.

What I think you and other 'gurus' should consider is that many
beginners don't know anything about those disagreements from almost 10
years ago.


They don't need to, if the code is crappy whenever it is that
they see it.

Accordingly, comments such as the above don't serve any
useful purpose.


Crappy code is crappy code, whether it is the original crappy
code or a revision of the crappy code.

Saying so serves a great purpose to beginners who, by definition,
don't know enough to recognize what code is crappy.

Instead they may cause confusion and hurt the
credibility of the regulars here,


A beginners choice of Sensei has a powerful bearing on how
close to mastery they can become. There are good choices,
and not so good choices.

preventing beginners from listening
when you want to say something really important.


Telling them to NOT learn from crappy example code *is* really important.
 
G

Gunnar Hjalmarsson

Tad said:
I have noted several such unnecessary threads that you've originated.

Really? Wonder who is the originator this time.

The person who posts a gross exaggeration?

Those who try to defend that exaggeration?

Me who object to the exaggeration?

It's obvious from Christopher's follow-up that he doesn't know enough
Perl to express such a depreciatory opinion on someone else's code, and
that his opinion is merely hearsay.

Defending such a conduct is not a wise thing to do.

There is a fairy tale for kids about the peril of repeated, unwarranted
warnings which is applicable to this discussion. Unfortunately I don't
know its name...
Telling them to NOT learn from crappy example code *is* really important.

s/telling/convincing/

That replacement makes the meaning of the sentence significantly
different. ;-)
 
T

Tad McClellan

It's obvious from Christopher's follow-up that he doesn't know enough
Perl


I didn't see anything in his followup that indicated a skill level.

I must have missed the obvious, what was it that you saw?

to express such a depreciatory opinion on someone else's code, and
that his opinion is merely hearsay.

Defending such a conduct is not a wise thing to do.


I could agree with that IF it be could established as hearsay.

There is a fairy tale for kids about the peril of repeated, unwarranted
warnings which is applicable to this discussion. Unfortunately I don't
know its name...


You are probably thinking of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf".

I'd have to disagree that warning people off of crappy code
is "unwarranted" though.

s/telling/convincing/

That replacement makes the meaning of the sentence significantly
different. ;-)


You are right, that would be better, but it would take much longer.

When faced with choosing from:

1) convincing them at the expense of many followups or much time.

2) telling them at the expense of about 20 seconds.

3) saying nothing and letting them learn the hard way.

those pressed for time might be more soft-hearted than simply
going with #3. :)

Most particularly when they have already participated in a dozen
or so previous #1-ish iterations (ie. they've done their time).


Mom often tells me to "look both ways before crossing the street".

She will, of course, explain why if I ask. But after a couple of
rounds of her explaining and me forgetting, she's likely to
revert to simply telling me once again.

Keeping me from getting hit by a bus is "warranted" from
my point of view, I like being around. :)
 
G

Gunnar Hjalmarsson

Tad said:
I didn't see anything in his followup that indicated a skill level.

I must have missed the obvious, what was it that you saw?

Unlike what Christopher stated

1) pipes to other programs can be opened also when taint mode is
enabled, and

2) the /e modifier in the expressions for unescaping URI escaped strings

s/%([a-fA-F0-9][a-fA-F0-9])/pack("C", hex($1))/eg;

isn't dangerous.

To me, that indicates a limited skill level (which isn't a 'crime' in
itself...). Anyway, considering that, and since Christopher's other
comments are far from supporting his depreciatory opinion on FormMail,
the logical conclusion is that the opinion is merely hearsay.

It's funny. Normally, such incorrect statements on Perl would have
resulted in several correcting follow-ups. Now, since they were made
with the aim of discrediting FormMail, that did not happen.
 
A

Anno Siegel

Gunnar Hjalmarsson said:
Tad said:
Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote:
[...]

Unlike what Christopher stated

1) pipes to other programs can be opened also when taint mode is
enabled, and

2) the /e modifier in the expressions for unescaping URI escaped strings

s/%([a-fA-F0-9][a-fA-F0-9])/pack("C", hex($1))/eg;

isn't dangerous.
[...]

It's funny. Normally, such incorrect statements on Perl would have
resulted in several correcting follow-ups. Now, since they were made
with the aim of discrediting FormMail, that did not happen.

Both have been pointed out in this thread befor now.

Anno
 
G

Gunnar Hjalmarsson

Anno said:
Gunnar said:
Unlike what Christopher stated

1) pipes to other programs can be opened also when taint mode is
enabled, and

2) the /e modifier in the expressions for unescaping URI escaped
strings

s/%([a-fA-F0-9][a-fA-F0-9])/pack("C", hex($1))/eg;

isn't dangerous.
[...]

It's funny. Normally, such incorrect statements on Perl would have
resulted in several correcting follow-ups. Now, since they were made
with the aim of discrediting FormMail, that did not happen.

Both have been pointed out in this thread befor now.

Yeah, by me. And you commented on the /e modifier, even if it was in a
reply to Eric...

Maybe I shouldn't have said that. Probably not. :)
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
473,781
Messages
2,569,615
Members
45,295
Latest member
EmilG1510

Latest Threads

Top