Hello Guys,

Maybe this ain't new for some of you, but amazing for me..

http://www.site5.com/press/20020418-01.html


Check the page out. I respect Tim Greer a lot, that is why I usually don't read his elongated posts as most of it goes over top of my head. j/k



Salam,
-Omair

Hm, does it mean Tim no longer works with JaguarPC?

Anyway, congrats to both Tim and Site5, I think Site5 will be benefited from the new staff addition and I hope Tim will find Site5 a suitable place for him.

cheers,
:beer:

Congrats Tim!

Hope you enjoy Site5 :D

Well, I tried to remember where Tim used to work, but could'nt revive the company name. Thanks for reminding me.

Well, although I very rarely read Tim's lenghty posts, but whenever I read it I find it helpful, technical and full of useful tips.

Way to go Tim :D
Wish you to be more successful in this life! Best of luck with your experience with Site5!



Salam,
-Omair

:confused:

Tim doesn`t work for JaguarPC anymore?

no.

Originally posted by Frosty
:confused:

Tim doesn`t work for JaguarPC anymore?

Oh no, I feel sorry for Site5 now. Buh Bye Site5.




Just joking Tim :D
It's about time they hired someone of your expertise. I think maybe every host here could use someone like you. You would be a great benefit to any hosting firm.

Tim's one of the good guys. Good luck to him and Site5.

Wasn't he like one or the head dev. of hostgui? what happend there? Was there a falling out?

Cool..Congratulation!

Originally posted by Haze
Wasn't he like one or the head dev. of hostgui? what happend there? Was there a falling out?

Hostgui are still saying there's no release date yet.

Cheers

Gary

HostGUI is being developed by a separated team. Tim Geer was assisting since he was hired by Jag at the moment.
Thus, there is no falling out at all.

Originally posted by Haze
Wasn't he like one or the head dev. of hostgui? what happend there? Was there a falling out?

As far as I know and as last I heard Tim is still a developer of HostGUi. Don't try to come to a conclusion that Tim is no longer even apart of it.

It's a fairly reasonable conclusion for one to make, after reading that press release.

Cheers

Gary

Originally posted by TimPD
As far as I know and as last I heard Tim is still a developer of HostGUi. Don't try to come to a conclusion that Tim is no longer even apart of it. I can confirm that Tim has assured us that he is no longer involved with HostGUI in any way. I'm sure he will confirm that himself here shortly if it is still an issue.

Hope that clears things up.

I did not. I talked with Jag before I posted.

Originally posted by TimPD
Don't try to come to a conclusion that Tim is no longer even apart of it.

Hey tim congratulations for your new job.

:beer:

From this thread, i see some typical response's from some that just fail to do their homework and just run their mouth whenever they have the chance, showing their true character.........

Congrad Tim on your new job

Congratulations Tim, I hope everything works out.

Congratulations Tim. I'm sure you will find Site5 to be everything that they live up to be. They're a great hosting company as I'm sure you obviously already know.

I talk to Greg quite often and Tim. I have been told that Tim was in the development of HostGUi still. However, It seems as Matt said he wasn't.

Congrats Tim. :beer:
Sounds interesting. And well deserved.

It's odd to have a press release on it if they're not going to be specific on why it was press worthy. They could have covered more than just his "nearly a year" experience and they could have named who he worked for and the control panel so that they could drop some names besides tim's. I'm sure that tim has more noteworthy accomplishments and experience that would have made it more press worthy.

Anyway, I hope that site5 filters tim's "expertise" through someone with people and perl skills. He'll probably prove to be a very valuable asset that way.

Any reason why he quit JaguarPC?

...sorry i was just joking :eek: :(

Ok now, watch it!

Rude people. I tell you now.

Hi everyone,

I just got online real quick to check some email and post in reply to this. I won't be online until Monday. I had a severe migrane headache (the 3rd time it's happened, roughly every 3rd year), and when it happens, I can't remember names, words, how to speak certain words, 1/2 my body goes numb and I simply can't think or function. I was told to not log on until Monday (ny my bosses), so I will post quickly and log back off before I get into trouble.

I just wanted to cover a few questions. There was no falling out at JaguarPC, they are and always will be a great company. I completely support them and Greg (Jag) and we're still friends. It's nothing at all bad. There was a lot of personal stuff going on in my life and it's too difficult to explain. I had to quit, but it wasn't anything bad at all, and I'm glad to say that Greg and I are still good friends and there's absolutely nothing bad I would or could say.

As for HostGUI, no, I am not developing HostGUI. There are some _very_ talented programmer's working on it and I'm confident it'll be a solid product (I'm not just saying that, I was very impressed with their ability and knowledge), so I wouldn't worry about that. However, I am in no way, shape or form involved with HostGUI or JaguarPC. I once again stress that there is nothing wrong or anything went bad, and it's simply too difficult to explain, and Jag is not to be blamed. Everything is cool and on friendly terms and there's no reason why that would change.

One two short, rather agressive comments before I log off. The person that made the comment about Jag's wife, well, I better relent from saying something I ought not to, but that post needs to be removed, MODS!

Finally, bitserve, you really need to get off this claim of stating I don't know the Perl language well enough (or at all), simply because you're embarrassed that I corrected you. The mods "removed" my sig to save your feelings' from being hurt, and that is over. If you wish to go off about how you already knew about the aspects I corrected you on, than state so. However, do not state blatant lies because you couldn't win an argument. I'm serious about that. If you wish to claim you knew what I was talking about, and thought I was a jerk, fine, but I most certainly know that langauge (and you know it) and I will not tolerate your continued abuse. We got along fine before, and I would hope you can either learn or get over it. Why don't we bury the hatchet here and now, because I'm not going to allow defaming falsehood's spouted out by you, or have you do this in threads that have nothing to do with you. You don't want the mods to ban you anymore than I do -- I think this forum is big enough for the both of us. As for your comment about something being press worthy, it was an announcement to let people know, not include my resume. I don't think they need to go into detail and list everything I've done, and your sarcasm isn't appreciated. So, let's just end this, okay?

Well, I'm going to log off, I'm still coming down off of Morphine and some other shots the ER gave me and I'm not able to think very clearly right now. Thanks to each and every one of you for your kind words and positive comments. Have fun everyone.

the original one-line post by BoogieMan
(commented out by alpha himself)

now, i gotta say... thats the most random and unncessary comment ever

Originally posted by Tim_Greer
Finally, bitserve, you really need to get off this claim of stating I don't know the Perl language well enough (or at all), simply because you're embarrassed that I corrected you. The mods "removed" my sig to save your feelings' from being hurt, and that is over. If you wish to go off about how you already knew about the aspects I corrected you on, than state so. However, do not state blatant lies because you couldn't win an argument. I'm serious about that. If you wish to claim you knew what I was talking about, and thought I was a jerk, fine, but I most certainly know that langauge (and you know it) and I will not tolerate your continued abuse. We got along fine before, and I would hope you can either learn or get over it. Why don't we bury the hatchet here and now, because I'm not going to allow defaming falsehood's spouted out by you, or have you do this in threads that have nothing to do with you. You don't want the mods to ban you anymore than I do -- I think this forum is big enough for the both of us. As for your comment about something being press worthy, it was an announcement to let people know, not include my resume. I don't think they need to go into detail and list everything I've done, and your sarcasm isn't appreciated. So, let's just end this, okay?

Why do you keep addressing the business that I work for, instead of me? My name is mark. If you want the business to reply to you, it's going to be quite difficult. It doesn't have a speaking voice.

My last reply in those perl threads was really all I had to say. You can go back and reread it every time you think that perhaps I didn't make every point that I wanted to make. You're the one who went on after that without really adding anything, except making yourself look pretty irrational.

I am a frequent visitor of comp.lang.perl.misc newsgroup, where we have been discussing the whole "die or report" issue in a much more rational way than you were capable of. Only one person has disagreed with me, and he was just as irrational as you.

"My opinion is that the guy arguing against 'die' is obviously a pinhead."

Nothing else to back up his opinion, just some personal attacks.

All of the other people, including some very prestigious geeks, agree with me. You may have even agreed with me, had you allowed yourself to listen to what I was saying and be reasonable.

I was not being sarcastic when I commented on the press release. I really do think that you probably have some accomplishments that would have made the release more press worthy. If they weren't going to hype you, and their intent was just to let everyone know that they were hiring people, any people, then it should have been written totally different, anyway. IMHO. If they were hyping you, then they didn't do a very good job, IMHO.

But then I had to be fair. I felt like I might mention your lack of people skills, which you have proven not only in your heated personal attacks of me but others.

Anyway, I know that the mods changed your sig, or had you change it because they felt it was innapropriate. I was fine with you quoting me. It's a good quote. You unfortunately tried to change the context with your incorrect lead in about what I was addressing, and you had to personally attack me again with the 2bit comment. I'm not sure why you have a problem with me, but I am aware of it. If you want to believe that I started it, and it was because you "embarrassed me", go right ahead. I'll just ask you to reread my last message in that perl thread, because it explains everything. I never personally attacked you, and only commented on your code. You could not deal with that.

I have always said, and I said in that perl thread. You should really post your opinions without attacking someone else's. If you do, then you should be prepared to take it back. You weren't. And it proved my point. I won that argument the instant you got upset and stopped being rational. Not to mention your perl skills weren't up to par with mine.

I know that this thread wasn't about me. It was about you. And I felt free to comment on that subject, since I've had some time to observe you. You're the one that has changed this thread to be about me. You were also the one that set up your signature to attack me, which basically allowed you to personally attack me in every post that you made no matter what the thread was about.

Anyway, I'm done posting in this thread. Because I'm sure that it will be locked before I get a chance to reply anyway. So my reply to anything that you might say is directly above. Feel free to read it as often as you like as a response to anything you may say. I won't provide my opinion on you in threads about you anymore, and I won't feel obligated to agree with you. However I won't let this get in the way of my ever agreeing with you again.

I really do believe that you would be a valuable asset to a technical team, but in my personal opinion you have an ego to overcome before you will be able to learn a lot of things about perl and possibly other things. It definitely got in the way of you taking any of my instruction. I wish site5 and you good luck. Really.

Tim,

I hope you get better soon and congratulations on your new job.

Congrats Tim. :D

Moving off topic here...

Mark, grow up. This is a thread to give your congrats to Tim, not to think of as many ways to troll as you can. I just read the post in question and to me it seems that you are just angry that someone here is a better programmer. I have been coding Perl for a year or so now and I am far from perfect at it. The one thing I like about these kind of boards is being able to post my code and then getting a better programmer to show me a better way to do it. If anything, it will improve your skills and teach you not to make the same mistake again. You on the other hand could not accept that Tim is a good programmer and found errors in your code. You took some friendly criticism and took it completely the wrong way. Not only that, but you had to bring it up yet again. Just move on.

Originally posted by bitserve


Why do you keep addressing the business that I work for, instead of me? My name is mark. If you want the business to reply to you, it's going to be quite difficult. It doesn't have a speaking voice.

My last reply in those perl threads was really all I had to say. You can go back and reread it every time you think that perhaps I didn't make every point that I wanted to make. You're the one who went on after that without really adding anything, except making yourself look pretty irrational.

I am a frequent visitor of comp.lang.perl.misc newsgroup, where we have been discussing the whole "die or report" issue in a much more rational way than you were capable of. Only one person has disagreed with me, and he was just as irrational as you.

"My opinion is that the guy arguing against 'die' is obviously a pinhead."

Nothing else to back up his opinion, just some personal attacks.

All of the other people, including some very prestigious geeks, agree with me. You may have even agreed with me, had you allowed yourself to listen to what I was saying and be reasonable.

I was not being sarcastic when I commented on the press release. I really do think that you probably have some accomplishments that would have made the release more press worthy. If they weren't going to hype you, and their intent was just to let everyone know that they were hiring people, any people, then it should have been written totally different, anyway. IMHO. If they were hyping you, then they didn't do a very good job, IMHO.

But then I had to be fair. I felt like I might mention your lack of people skills, which you have proven not only in your heated personal attacks of me but others.

Anyway, I know that the mods changed your sig, or had you change it because they felt it was innapropriate. I was fine with you quoting me. It's a good quote. You unfortunately tried to change the context with your incorrect lead in about what I was addressing, and you had to personally attack me again with the 2bit comment. I'm not sure why you have a problem with me, but I am aware of it. If you want to believe that I started it, and it was because you "embarrassed me", go right ahead. I'll just ask you to reread my last message in that perl thread, because it explains everything. I never personally attacked you, and only commented on your code. You could not deal with that.

I have always said, and I said in that perl thread. You should really post your opinions without attacking someone else's. If you do, then you should be prepared to take it back. You weren't. And it proved my point. I won that argument the instant you got upset and stopped being rational. Not to mention your perl skills weren't up to par with mine.

I know that this thread wasn't about me. It was about you. And I felt free to comment on that subject, since I've had some time to observe you. You're the one that has changed this thread to be about me. You were also the one that set up your signature to attack me, which basically allowed you to personally attack me in every post that you made no matter what the thread was about.

Anyway, I'm done posting in this thread. Because I'm sure that it will be locked before I get a chance to reply anyway. So my reply to anything that you might say is directly above. Feel free to read it as often as you like as a response to anything you may say. I won't provide my opinion on you in threads about you anymore, and I won't feel obligated to agree with you. However I won't let this get in the way of my ever agreeing with you again.

I really do believe that you would be a valuable asset to a technical team, but in my personal opinion you have an ego to overcome before you will be able to learn a lot of things about perl and possibly other things. It definitely got in the way of you taking any of my instruction. I wish site5 and you good luck. Really.

Mark,

I'm rather disappointed here. If you recall, I even put up a poll about who I thought were the top posters around here with the most value. I included both of you on that list (not to say there wasn't a lot of other people that offer a lot either, I was just trying to keep it short). I think Tim was commenting about your personal attack in a thread that had nothing to do with your little argument here and that you posted that nonsense again anyway. That just wasn't cool.

As far as the big issue you seem to have with Perl, I read that thread. I know Perl and I know it well. I stayed out of it, because you didn't seem to be dealing with being corrected well. Why don't you instead, try and learn from it? If you recall, Tim simply said to check your calls, nothing more. He gave an example using die. He even said that depending on what the full complete code would do, you might want or need die, or not. So, your argument is out the window. Perhaps you don't see it as being corrected, but it was just very basic and very common programming practices he was trying to educate you on. Even in this thread he said something to the effect that if you want to claim you were aware of these rules but didn't want to use them, then just say so, but he wasn't wrong and if anything he sure knows more than you do. I mean this, if anyone looked like they knew more, it was Tim. If you knew this, than just accept it and say you knew too and that you just didn't want to approach it the same way. All of us Perl coders know this, Mark! He never said you had to use die, he said you had to check the calls for success. Further, he even commented it wasn't about CGI, like you kept bringing up. None of us knew how this user was running the script or what the rest of it entailed. Finding and replacing that value (or adding it) could have been the check needed to continue or it could have done who knows what. Even more likely, is that is this template didn't exist, wasn't able to be opened for read or write, that it's a pretty damn good reason to die or NOT continue running the script! Your comment about continuing running a script no matter what, because why did you execute it in the first place otherwise, is perposteriously stupid! Programs are meant to do things, if they don't do them, don't have permissions, etc., you don't want to have it continue to run, process information and clobber things!

I'm not even joking about this and such horrible advise from you, is only going to make someone program poorly and have scripts that break all the time! So, I'm here to help set the record straight! Why don't you just give up about this already? I thought Tim offered good, sound advice, you might not agree, but it was good advice, unless you think no program in the world should ever die no matter what error (again, that just being an example and one way to do it!).

And, I've got to tell ya, Mark. Your comment about the ego, well, I suggest you look in the mirror. You can't even handle being corrected by someone that obviously knows more than you do. I'm not choosing any sides, but when someone's right, they are right. All you continue to do is claim he was wrong about something you know less about and that's an annoying quality. I hope you both stay around and offer more knowledge, but you've got to back off and use logic rather than ego sometimes, Mark. If you had, you wouldn't be in this mess. This is completely unnecessary and unfair for you to be doing and to have brought your bogus and mean spirited comments into this thread. I too hang out at the Perl news groups and this sort of attitude will get you called a pinhead there. Further, you need to be clear about your discussion with die. Tim never said to not do error checking in place of die, and you contend that is the case. It was obviously an example of checking your calls. I dare you to get any of the people from the Perl news group to read that thread. You'd embarrass yourself, because I can see that and I'm telling you this as a Perl programmer. If you want, PM me and ask anything and I'll answer. I'm sick of seeing this stuff here, and I'm telling you this as a long time lurker. You're acting like a real jerk, Mark, to continue this nonsense about Tim needing to learn more. It's fine if you don't know, but I'm tired of seeing egotistical newbies rant on and make such statements. All of us that know Perl that read that thread are becoming rather annoyed with your being such a pest. Get over it, you were wrong! I thought you were smarter than this, Mark!? You have a LOT to learn!

(look below how Mark makes a fool out of himself)

EXTRA, EXTRA, read all about it, Mark proves' Tim's right!

OH, I HAD to add this edit to this post. This is great! Mark posts in the Perl news group, *anonymously*, because he was too embarrassed about his post and didn't know if he was right about all the stuff he's been claiming. Heh. I love this, totally makes a fool out of himself:

http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=ccomp.lang.perl.misc&hl=en&frame=right&th=e79f31c52c2a8a5d&seekm=ec61cukbhtg55e8dv09sg4imkbfm9lek7v%404ax.com#link10

His whole argument, is trying to act like it's a CGI script. When did THAT happen, Mark? You just don't give up, do you? I'm amazed how stupid this is! And, Mark, you don't use taint, strict, etc. just for a piece of code, but a code example, if you do. This is entirely different.

"That's because they're examples, so they show exemplary code. Current wisdom has it, that the standard way of using open() (and indeed most system calls) is to check for success and die with a reasonable message in case of failure.

One of the most annoying peeves in this newsgroups is the frequency of questions about code that doesn't check its open's and other crucial parts. If there is much that can *obviously* go wrong, it is very hard to find places where things could go wrong besides that. That is one of the reasons the above advice is often given in this newsgroup."

Boy, that must have really got under your skin, eh, Mark?

Or Alan J. Flavell (One of the top 10 or 20 posters of all time (but I guess you wouldn't know that, since you only post anonymously there to save your ego once in a blue moon)):

"Writing a program that is structured in such a way (if/then/else etc.) that it tests every status and carries on in an appropriate fashion in the main body of the code may be a fine discipline, but it can lead to source code that's so overwhelmed with processing for special cases which hardly ever arise, that one loses sight of what it's really intended to do.

So, it seems to me that unless the code is meant to be something that has to run and run in every conceivable circumstance and never die and always tidy up any mess that it makes when there's an error, - it can make applications more manageble if they just parachute out when things go wrong, and have a clean-up routine that does a reasonable job of tidying up any loose ends before exiting."


You didn't even read what these people said, Mark! You just assumed they agreed with you. They said that error checking is a good thing! A GOOD THING, Mark! READ IT AGAIN. SEE that Tim NEVER said that die HAD to be used, but that you SHOULD check for failure. There's many way's you can do that. No one here knew what the code was all doing, we don't know we wanted it to continue or not. The original poster never stated, or said. You are making a huge fool out of yourself and it's hilarious that you actually dared to post there and act like you were someone else (added that you actually thought these people agreed with you!) Ha ha!

Here's another one for you, Mark:

"Most of those examples consist of opening a file, going through some loop that reads the file, and then a little cleanup. There's nothing sensible
such a program can do if it can't open the file, so it should die."

"There have been plently of reports in this group of people spending literally hours trying to track down "bugs" in their code that turned out to be failures to open files. You can waste tremendous amounts of time if you don't check for things like that (which, remember, are dependent on circumstances outside your program). Failure to check for such contingencies (unlike failure to check for internal program logic problems) results in programs that may run perfectly on one system and fail on another, which makes debugging exceptionally hard."

All well known Perl coders that have been around there helping people for YEARS! Oh, I guess Tim just has no clue at all what he's talking about, huh, Mark? And, I guess I don't either, since I've only been coding in Perl since the first few months it was out and didn't do all the nifty things it does now! What really gets me, is Tim offered reasonable advice and a jerk like you comes in and starts screaming that he's this irrational, egotistical jerk that doesn't know Perl, all because your feelings were hurt by being corrected. Again, fine if you don't know, but DO NOT bitch and bitch and give out flawed, bad or unhelpful advice like you have! SAME ON YOU, MARK! Now, I once again urge you to just GIVE UP, since you were wrong.

NO ONE there agreed with you! They ALL disagreed with you! HA HA! READ IT, Mark! BTW, the guy who called you a pinhead for arguing against die, was "Mark Jason Dominus". He's only like one of the five most famous Perl coders that's ever lived. How dare he not agree with you. Heh. Yeah, Mark, "only one guy". You obviously have no idea who that guy is. Further, you obviously are clueless to the fact that no one there once agreed with you about error checking is dumb. And, people mostly encouraged die even then. Yet, you can rant on about CGI this and CGI that, all you like, but as Tim said, "Perl and CGI are not the same thing". Now, I feel I've made my point, as a real Perl coder that is highly offended by your pathetic arguments here! I didn't mean to destroy your ego, but it had to be done.

Originally posted by HostQuote
BTW, the guy who called you a pinhead for arguing against die, was "Mark Jason Dominus". He's only like one of the five most famous Perl coders that's ever lived. How dare he not agree with you. Heh. Yeah, Mark, "only one guy". You obviously have no idea who that guy is.
Just looked into this guy and I have to admit, when someone of that caliber calls you a pin head, it might be time to throw in the towel. Maybe you're better than he is, heck I dunno...

Sorry to continue the OT myself, however, I nearly split out my drink reading these past few posts and that google link.

Originally posted by bitserve
Anyway, I hope that site5 filters tim's "expertise" through someone with people and perl skills. He'll probably prove to be a very valuable asset that way.Oh, based on this thread alone (not to mention hundreds of others), I don't think Tim's expertise needs any "filtering". :rolleyes: I have always known him to be an extremely knowledgeable person--not to mention a consumate professional. According to this thread (http://webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=40518), it would appear the majority of the WHT community agrees with me.

Keep in mind that he was not the one who started this nonsense up again. Your post contributed nothing, and I honestly don't value your good wishes when they are coupled with insults (whether direct or indirect) to our employees.

I do thank you for your advice however--we'll be sure to contact next time we're looking to hire someone. You can give us your professional evaluation of their skills and attitude--and we will weigh it accordingly. :)

Thanks again guys.

And, thanks for the support.

I wouldn't bother trying to convince someone like that of anything, but I appreciate the backing and the help some people offered for some suggestions/proof.

However, any of us that know the language (or any other), will see this for what it is. Obviously he had no care or intention to be civil. Indeed, he and I "got into it", but I figured it would have been over. I guess it's not to/for him. Oh well, that's his problem.

I don't think I need to say anything or defend anything. I've seen this a lot in a lot of places on the Internet on chat rooms, forums and news groups. It's not a big deal. I figure if this is what he needs to feel good about himself, then so be it -- he can have it. I really don't even care. I tried to bury the proverbial hatched. He can argue with himself now though.

And, for the record, the guy's at Site5 ran the press release by me, and I said it was fine. I surely could have said "Oh, hey, add this, and this, and this, and this... and what I did 5 years ago and 7, and before I got online", but I didn't care, nor did they. It wasn't a resume, we knew what I am capable of and I've been friend's with Matt for a while and have talked about a lot of stuff. We weren't out to impress or hype people up, it was simply an announcement.

Finally, I had some people question why I left Jag for Site5. I didn't. I had quit Jag near a month ago, and I have just only been with site5 for about a week now. I had to end up somewhere, and this is where I ended up. I'm very happy and I think this will be a lot of fun. Matt, Todd and Vince are great people and we get along very well. I'm happy with how things turned out, but once again, that's not negative reflection on Jag. They are a great company to be hosted on and I enjoyed my employment with them -- and we remain good friends. So, no need to worry about anything. My goodness, I didn't realize this would have caused such excitement. Thanks again for all the kind words and support. Cheers!

Originally posted by Woody
Mark, grow up. This is a thread to give your congrats to Tim, not to think of as many ways to troll as you can. I just read the post in question and to me it seems that you are just angry that someone here is a better programmer. I have been coding Perl for a year or so now and I am far from perfect at it. The one thing I like about these kind of boards is being able to post my code and then getting a better programmer to show me a better way to do it. If anything, it will improve your skills and teach you not to make the same mistake again. You on the other hand could not accept that Tim is a good programmer and found errors in your code. You took some friendly criticism and took it completely the wrong way. Not only that, but you had to bring it up yet again. Just move on.

So you also would personally attack me?

You've been coding perl for a whole year?

I say, go back and read the original post, and see who has been the most difficult in this situation. It's tim, not I.

Tim did not correct any errors in my code. There weren't any.

As I said before, he could provide his opinion on my code, but could not handle my doing the same thing back.

Originally posted by bitserve
So you also would personally attack me?


Why not? You came here to attack me. What did this post about me being hired have anything to do with you? You used it as an opportunity to further go on about this ridiculousness.


You've been coding perl for a whole year?


He's been for long enough to know the basics.


I say, go back and read the original post, and see who has been the most difficult in this situation. It's tim, not I.


Right, which is why you continue, still. You might contend you weren't corrected, and if you don't agree, fine. But to come here posting nonsense about that meaning that I don't know anything and you do, is ridiculous. Everyone here has stated why, as did everyone in the Perl news group. What more do you want? Let it die.


Tim did not correct any errors in my code. There weren't any.


Well, I suppose that's a matter of opinion then.


As I said before, he could provide his opinion on my code,


I stated what I thought was important to help make that user a better coder to help trouble shoot future problems, it's a common thing to do in an example, to prevent further questions and better understanding by the user. Just as all the people in the Perl news group helped educate you on the fact as well, it's nothing personal. If you didn't agree, fine, but you had no grounds to be stating what you have, and to continue to bring this nonsense claim into threads not pertaining to it, because you were offended by my views.


but could not handle my doing the same thing back.

I handled it fine. You see though, bitserve (that's your handle after all, I don't want anyone to confuse you with another Mark), I thought that was a relevant, and helpful correction on an oversight. You, however, were trying to say that my choice of intention spaces and syntax were a big problem. In comparision to personal perferences vs. a standard and simple rule of thumb all programmers practice, even in example, does not support your ridiculous claims to continue this. This has been pointed out time and time again. yet, you continue. It annoys people, quite obviously. Why don't you either admit the situation and facts, and end this persistant claim that is false, or just stop and end it? This is really getting sad. It's one thing to not agree, but to make up things for your own benefit about the events or the facts, just is not going to impress anyone. If you don't like me, fine. If you don't agree, fine. However, do not make the mistake of thinking people, in general, are going to allow you to do that and just sit idly by and act like it's okay. Just admit you don't agree, we have a different style and idea about how to do things -- nothing wrong with that. However, don't you dare, I remind you again, come in acting like I don't know what I'm doing. That's not going to work here, or in the Perl forums where everyone clearly disagreed with your hostile and juvinle attempts to win any debate. So, why fight it? Just end it, and save face while you do it if you want, but end it. I'm asking nicely.

Originally posted by HostQuote
I think Tim was commenting about your personal attack in a thread that had nothing to do with your little argument here and that you posted that nonsense again anyway. That just wasn't cool.

I'm sorry that you believe that my opinion is a personal attack.

As far as the big issue you seem to have with Perl, I read that thread. I know Perl and I know it well. I stayed out of it, because you didn't seem to be dealing with being corrected well. Why don't you instead, try and learn from it? If you recall, Tim simply said to check your calls, nothing more. He gave an example using die. He even said that depending on what the full complete code would do, you might want or need die, or not. So, your argument is out the window. Perhaps you don't see it as being corrected, but it was just very basic and very common programming practices he was trying to educate you on. Even in this thread he said something to the effect that if you want to claim you were aware of these rules but didn't want to use them, then just say so, but he wasn't wrong and if anything he sure knows more than you do. I mean this, if anyone looked like they knew more, it was Tim. If you knew this, than just accept it and say you knew too and that you just didn't want to approach it the same way. All of us Perl coders know this, Mark! He never said you had to use die, he said you had to check the calls for success.

He said, "Don't forget to check the calls", and added die functions. Where is the part where he said "depending on what the full complete code would do..."? I think you're confusing what he said with what I said. I repairing the code that was broken, I was not adding any error checking. I had opinions on tim's code too, but I was keeping it to myself, as a good poster does. But when he commented on mine, I thought that I should comment on his to show him why it's not polite. And he didn't like it, as I didn't think he would.

Further, he even commented it wasn't about CGI, like you kept bringing up.

I never said it was CGI. You and tim both seem to think that I said that. You both are selective readers. Here's what I said, "You should also not kill a program because of an error. Especially if it's a CGI program. If you really want error checking, then add it in."

None of us knew how this user was running the script or what the rest of it entailed. Finding and replacing that value (or adding it) could have been the check needed to continue or it could have done who knows what. Even more likely, is that is this template didn't exist, wasn't able to be opened for read or write, that it's a pretty damn good reason to die or NOT continue running the script!

Exactly. Tim is the only one that assumed that the small snippet of code was the entire program. And dylan did clearly state that opening the file was not the problem, but that the modification of the file was not what was expected.

Your comment about continuing running a script no matter what, because why did you execute it in the first place otherwise, is perposteriously stupid! Programs are meant to do things, if they don't do them, don't have permissions, etc., you don't want to have it continue to run, process information and clobber things!

You didn't read my post. I didn't say that you should do things that required the file to open. You should skip those, and continue with everything else that may be in your program that still needs to run, and report your errors. You are as selective as a reader as tim.

I'm not even joking about this and such horrible advise from you, is only going to make someone program poorly and have scripts that break all the time! So, I'm here to help set the record straight! Why don't you just give up about this already? I thought Tim offered good, sound advice, you might not agree, but it was good advice, unless you think no program in the world should ever die no matter what error (again, that just being an example and one way to do it!).

No, I don't think a program should just die, unless you add your own die handling. In short examples it is often fine, but in production code it is almost always not what you're going to want to do. I felt as long as you were going to add this check, it might have well been done better. It was tim's advice that I thought was going to cause more problems.

And, I've got to tell ya, Mark. Your comment about the ego, well, I suggest you look in the mirror. You can't even handle being corrected by someone that obviously knows more than you do. I'm not choosing any sides, but when someone's right, they are right. All you continue to do is claim he was wrong about something you know less about and that's an annoying quality. I hope you both stay around and offer more knowledge, but you've got to back off and use logic rather than ego sometimes, Mark. If you had, you wouldn't be in this mess. This is completely unnecessary and unfair for you to be doing and to have brought your bogus and mean spirited comments into this thread. I too hang out at the Perl news groups and this sort of attitude will get you called a pinhead there. Further, you need to be clear about your discussion with die. Tim never said to not do error checking in place of die, and you contend that is the case. It was obviously an example of checking your calls. I dare you to get any of the people from the Perl news group to read that thread. You'd embarrass yourself, because I can see that and I'm telling you this as a Perl programmer. If you want, PM me and ask anything and I'll answer. I'm sick of seeing this stuff here, and I'm telling you this as a long time lurker. You're acting like a real jerk, Mark, to continue this nonsense about Tim needing to learn more. It's fine if you don't know, but I'm tired of seeing egotistical newbies rant on and make such statements. All of us that know Perl that read that thread are becoming rather annoyed with your being such a pest. Get over it, you were wrong! I thought you were smarter than this, Mark!? You have a LOT to learn!

(look below how Mark makes a fool out of himself) [/B]

I am not a newbie, and I do have an ego, but not a very big one. It has never gotten in my way. I do not embarrass, and I have no reason to concede to your ideas. Again with the personal attacks, and that was what tim continued to argue about, especially in his custom signature that he had for a couple of days. He finally did realize that the way of doing error checks that I proposed was better, as he finally incoroprated it in his code. I did post this thread in the newsgroups, and most agree with me. If you didn't want this here, you should have PMd me. I would have been happy to continue this discussion offline.

Originally posted by Chicken

Just looked into this guy and I have to admit, when someone of that caliber calls you a pin head, it might be time to throw in the towel. Maybe you're better than he is, heck I dunno...

Sorry to continue the OT myself, however, I nearly split out my drink reading these past few posts and that google link.

I never said that Mark Jason Dominus wasn't a good perl programmer. I said that he was acting just as irrational as tim. As I said before "Nothing else to back up his opinion, just some personal attacks." That's fine.

Originally posted by HostQuote
EXTRA, EXTRA, read all about it, Mark proves' Tim's right!

OH, I HAD to add this edit to this post. This is great! Mark posts in the Perl news group, *anonymously*, because he was too embarrassed about his post and didn't know if he was right about all the stuff he's been claiming. Heh. I love this, totally makes a fool out of himself:

http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=ccomp.lang.perl.misc&hl=en&frame=right&th=e79f31c52c2a8a5d&seekm=ec61cukbhtg55e8dv09sg4imkbfm9lek7v%404ax.com#link10

Actually, I do visit the newsgroup regularly. If you read other threads around here, you would realize that I'm away on "vacation" right now. I have been discussing this whole perl thing with my brother, who is also a better programmer than tim, and better than me. And we have been soliciting opinions to the group together. We can post as whoever we want. I do know that I have an opinion. There are no right or wrong opinions. I do not embarrass, and we are posting no more anonymously than hostquote. Is that your real name? If someone asked who we were, we'd identify ourselves.

His whole argument, is trying to act like it's a CGI script. When did THAT happen, Mark? You just don't give up, do you? I'm amazed how stupid this is! And, Mark, you don't use taint, strict, etc. just for a piece of code, but a code example, if you do. This is entirely different.

Again with the selective reading. I never said it was a CGI script. I suggest you read the post again. You have this same weird mindset that tim has, which I don't get. You so much want to be irrational, rather than listening to another opinion.

"That's because they're examples, so they show exemplary code. Current wisdom has it, that the standard way of using open() (and indeed most system calls) is to check for success and die with a reasonable message in case of failure.

One of the most annoying peeves in this newsgroups is the frequency of questions about code that doesn't check its open's and other crucial parts. If there is much that can *obviously* go wrong, it is very hard to find places where things could go wrong besides that. That is one of the reasons the above advice is often given in this newsgroup."

Your selective quoting is nice. Right after that he also said:

"In any case, as you noted yourself, these are examples. In real code a different treatment is often in order. In production code, however, a check should never be omitted, but sometimes skipping the file with a warning may be more appropriate than die()."

Boy, that must have really got under your skin, eh, Mark?

Or Alan J. Flavell (One of the top 10 or 20 posters of all time (but I guess you wouldn't know that, since you only post anonymously there to save your ego once in a blue moon)):

I know who he is, thank you. Did you not notice that I mentioned the prestigous geeks who commented on this? Apparently not. Yes, he's one of them.

"Writing a program that is structured in such a way (if/then/else etc.) that it tests every status and carries on in an appropriate fashion in the main body of the code may be a fine discipline, but it can lead to source code that's so overwhelmed with processing for special cases which hardly ever arise, that one loses sight of what it's really intended to do.

So, it seems to me that unless the code is meant to be something that has to run and run in every conceivable circumstance and never die and always tidy up any mess that it makes when there's an error, - it can make applications more manageble if they just parachute out when things go wrong, and have a clean-up routine that does a reasonable job of tidying up any loose ends before exiting."

Again with the selctive quoting. He also agreed with Anno and myself:

"Indeed."
"No dispute."

You didn't even read what these people said, Mark! You just assumed they agreed with you. They said that error checking is a good thing! A GOOD THING, Mark! READ IT AGAIN. SEE that Tim NEVER said that die HAD to be used, but that you SHOULD check for failure. There's many way's you can do that. No one here knew what the code was all doing, we don't know we wanted it to continue or not. The original poster never stated, or said. You are making a huge fool out of yourself and it's hilarious that you actually dared to post there and act like you were someone else (added that you actually thought these people agreed with you!) Ha ha!

You're the one that didn't read the posts. You are a very selective reader. The consensus was:

Write your one-time scripts any way you want. If they do the job, fine, if they don't, add the obvious checks, warnings, whatever.

Examples often have die. In real code a different treatment is often in order. In production code, however, a check should never be omitted, but sometimes skipping the file with a warning may be more appropriate than die().

Here's another one for you, Mark:

"Most of those examples consist of opening a file, going through some loop that reads the file, and then a little cleanup. There's nothing sensible
such a program can do if it can't open the file, so it should die."

"There have been plently of reports in this group of people spending literally hours trying to track down "bugs" in their code that turned out to be failures to open files. You can waste tremendous amounts of time if you don't check for things like that (which, remember, are dependent on circumstances outside your program). Failure to check for such contingencies (unlike failure to check for internal program logic problems) results in programs that may run perfectly on one system and fail on another, which makes debugging exceptionally hard."

All well known Perl coders that have been around there helping people for YEARS! Oh, I guess Tim just has no clue at all what he's talking about, huh, Mark? And, I guess I don't either, since I've only been coding in Perl since the first few months it was out and didn't do all the nifty things it does now! What really gets me, is Tim offered reasonable advice and a jerk like you comes in and starts screaming that he's this irrational, egotistical jerk that doesn't know Perl, all because your feelings were hurt by being corrected. Again, fine if you don't know, but DO NOT bitch and bitch and give out flawed, bad or unhelpful advice like you have! SAME ON YOU, MARK! Now, I once again urge you to just GIVE UP, since you were wrong.

Again, you and tim are the ones being irrational. And even mark dominus a little. I still think if he'd have realized what we were even talking about, that he might have agreed. We all know that tim's random indentation, use of commas as delimiters, and doing a substitution was not the correct (or best) way to do things. I do not lie. Everyone in comp.lang.misc.perl agreed with me over Tim. If you would like to discuss this, I will invite plenty of profressional perl programmers to comment on this. Die is not the answer. Error checking is. I was repairing the part of the code that needed repait. I was not adding additional checks. This is quite a common way to reply to code questions.

Again, this isn't even the issue. The issue is that tim, although he'd already provided his code example, felt like he had to provide his uninformed opinion on mine. It completely wasn't necessary, as he didn't know what he was talking about really. If he had questions on why I was doing something, he should have asked. I explained them, but he still wanted to argue. Which I don't get.

But, more than that. I have always stressed that one should post their own opinion, and not argue obout someone else's. I am always happy to point out why this should not be done, by pointing out how things can escalate. My point has been proven. Tim got instantly irrational, and started attacking me with names such as tool, troll, and skippy?

Originally posted by bitserve

I'm sorry that you believe that my opinion is a personal attack.



Well, I'm obviously not along in feeling that.



He said, "Don't forget to check the calls",


I did, yes.


and added die functions.


I did, yes. That was what I did in my example. I'm not going to say "check your calls" and not let the guy even know what I meant. Those were standard, catch the error and show it.


Where is the part where he said "depending on what the full complete code would do..."?


No, I didn't think I needed to justify every single thing I said. Every programmer knows the importance, it's not my fault you do not. Every programmer knows that you code depending on how you want it to raise the errors, it's not my fault you do not (since you had to ask, you must not.)


I think you're confusing what he said with what I said.


He confused nothing. It's clear to all of us that aren't trying to debate this to death for no reason.


I repairing the code that was broken, I was not adding any error checking.


Right, and I stated that I believed that was a mistake on your part. It's pretty standard and for a reason. It passes good programming standards down to the people you help. What if this user tried your "fixed" code and it bombed... he'd have no idea why and NEITHER WOULD WE to be able to help him locate where the problem lies -- hence ERROR CHECKING. Why are you fighting this? Are you wondering why you were called a pinhead? Do you realize how ridiculous you're being?


I had opinions on tim's code too, but I was keeping it to myself, as a good poster does.


Wrong, a good poster makes sure helpful and the best quality and logical code is displayed. This user's post was asking about how his logic was wrong. Error checking is important logic. Further, your opinions about my code, were nothing more than desperate attempts to ridicule my code, because you felt embarrassed by my correction of yours. You didn't state anything, other than my indention spaces and my personal perferences. Not a lack of an important thing, such as error checking. You, bitserve, are the one that's confused and talking about two different things.


But when he commented on mine, I thought that I should comment on his to show him why it's not polite.


Oh, so it's not polite to correct someone's oversight on an imporant issue? This is what every programmer faces when they correct someone or make their code better for the sake of being better? Allowing people to omit important things like that, isn't rude.


And he didn't like it, as I didn't think he would.


I didn't like it, because you attacked me, because you felt my correction was an attack, which is was not, obviously. You picked on things like my preferences of delimeters and indentions. Are you joking, do you think that's the same thing? If a mechanic tells you your brakes are loose and you get offended, are you going to go key his car?


I never said it was CGI.


Read your own posts. You said this in the news group, when you were not having anyone agree with you "well, what if it was CGI, you'd not want to use die then!" Well, they explained why you would still, a lot of the time. Read what YOU say, please.


You and tim both seem to think that I said that.


Because you said it, and a few times in the thread too -- that was your reason for saying die was not good. Pay attention.


You both are selective readers.


Pot->Kettle->Black. This is so ironic.

Here's what I said, "You should also not kill a program because of an error. Especially if it's a CGI program. If you really want error checking, then add it in."


And I agreed. You went on about CGI again afterwards and in the news group too. It's just not working, bitserve, give up.


Exactly. Tim is the only one that assumed that the small snippet of code was the entire program.


Talk about selective reading. You are and have only been (this entire time) stating whatever suits your claims best. This is not at all true and this is the best you can do to try and debate this. Pathetic.


And dylan did clearly state that opening the file was not the problem,


I never said he did. It could have been, at some point. Then again, you don't understand or agree with the importance of error checking, so why would you agree?


but that the modification of the file was not what was expected.


True.


You didn't read my post.


YOU should read YOUR post.


I didn't say that you should do things that required the file to open.


The example your modified opened a file, that goes without saying that you need to deal with that.


You should skip those, and continue with everything else that may be in your program that still needs to run, and report your errors.


We didn't know what else it did or what else needs to run. That sort of attitude can result in big problems. I can't even begin to name the reasons that you obviously have no idea about! Go ask the guy's in the Perl news group, bitserve!


You are as selective as a reader as tim.


Oh geez...


No, I don't think a program should just die, unless you add your own die handling.


I never said that wasn't a viable solution. I gave a standard example, what don't you get?


In short examples it is often fine,


And it was.


but in production code it is almost always not what you're going to want to do.


We don't know that. It greatly depends. Error checking, exception handling, logging, etc., yes, all good planning. But to not do ANY checks, is stupid. It was an example. What don't you get?


I felt as long as you were going to add this check, it might have well been done better.


Our CODE to add a value to the template could have been better. Lots of things could have been better. We were, however, giving him examples and it's standard to do checking, even while giving examples. As the guy's in the Perl news group that you claim to hang around so much, Mr. Anonymous Posting Boy!


It was tim's advice that I thought was going to cause more problems.


That's ridiculous to claim error checking will cause more problems! It won't matterm unless it can't open the file for some reason, in which case it's a BIG help! If you're talking about the actual code, I adjusted it for you, to illustrate how it is a completely viable solution, evem more than yours. I could have modified it further, or I could have changed it or did it hundreds of other ways. Your claim I don't know Perl, is what crossed the line. There's debating and disagreeing, and there's flat out lying and trolling. You were acting the part of the latter, even if you didn't like my debates and explainations. You could have controlled yourself, but you continue to choose to cross the line and that needs to stop.


I am not a newbie,


Then don't act like one, for goodness sakes!


and I do have an ego,


Yes.


but not a very big one.


Says you. Yet, you'll blatantly lie or just make things up to make you feel right. Sounds like an issue with an ego to me.


It has never gotten in my way.


I think this discussion is proof that it has. The question is, is it too big to ever accept that?


I do not embarrass, and I have no reason to concede to your ideas.


You can be thickheaded and think it means whatever you want, but lying and making claims you know better than or are just making up because you don't know better, is wrong! It is also not a good quality. That isn't to be mistaken to say you should agree with me, but if you don't get what that means by now, then maybe you're a better Perl programmer, than you are with anything else (that's not a good thing).


Again with the personal attacks, and that was what tim continued to argue about,


Yes, and you did and you continue. You brought it into this thread. What don't you get?


especially in his custom signature that he had for a couple of days.


The one you have now? So what? It's gone. It was funny. Why do you think something YOU said looked so foolish? It was classic and I used it for a sig.


He finally did realize that the way of doing error checks that I proposed was better,


What are you EVEN talking about here? I never said any such thing. Show me this! I stated there was other ways to do it, and I did it in a way to deal with CGI, since YOU brought it up AGAIN. I didn't say that was even the best way and it was simple, and in fact, it was not the best way. As people even stated on the news groups, that could open up security issues.


as he finally incoroprated it in his code.


One day, when you get over yourself, go back and read all this stuff and the debate you think we had and how you think I listened to or learned from you.


I did post this thread in the newsgroups, and most agree with me.


Oh goodness. No one there agreed with you. Not one of them. READ what they responded with.


If you didn't want this here, you should have PMd me.


Who is that to? Me or him? Either way, you posted it on the thread, so people posted to you here about it in response. Do you not get that either?


I would have been happy to continue this discussion offline.

Then why, oh why, did you bring it up intentionally? Please, just move on, no one's buying these lies. Everyone read it, no one agreed with your little war you wanted to wage. Obviously you feel intimidated and this is a big deal. I suppose a lot of people can say and claim a whole lot of things sitting safely behind their computer and aren't used to being told they don't know something. However, sometimes, in your case for example, it's painfully obvious. Are you just a masochist or what?

Originally posted by bitserve


I never said that Mark Jason Dominus wasn't a good perl programmer. I said that he was acting just as irrational as tim. As I said before "Nothing else to back up his opinion, just some personal attacks." That's fine.

Wow, you really miss the point.

Originally posted by Site5-Matt
Oh, based on this thread alone (not to mention hundreds of others), I don't think Tim's expertise needs any "filtering". :rolleyes: I have always known him to be an extremely knowledgeable person--not to mention a consumate professional. According to this thread (http://webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=40518), it would appear the majority of the WHT community agrees with me.

Thank you for your opinion.

[QUOTE]Keep in mind that he was not the one who started this nonsense up again. Your post contributed nothing, and I honestly don't value your good wishes when they are coupled with insults (whether direct or indirect) to our employees.

It was my honest opinion of tim. No more, no less.

I do thank you for your advice however--we'll be sure to contact next time we're looking to hire someone. You can give us your professional evaluation of their skills and attitude--and we will weigh it accordingly. :) [/B]

I'm sorry if my opinion of your press release or your hiring decision made you angry to where you felt like you had to be sarcastic. I'm glad that you were able to hear out my opinion, whether it affects yours or not.

Am I in the right place...

Congrats on the new job Tim.

Originally posted by Tim_Greer
I handled it fine. You see though, bitserve (that's your handle after all, I don't want anyone to confuse you with another Mark),


Is that also why you called me skippy? Anyway, it's a username, not a handle. A handle is an alias, such as what chicken has. Do you call akashd, akashd, even though it's his username? What about tina? Do you call her affordablehost? Or timpd? Do you call him tim, or timpd? You just call me by the name of the business that I work for because you know that it bothers me. It's a continuation of your name calling. If you don't want to honor that request, then don't. Call me whatever you like. But it's not because you don't want anyone to confuse me with someone else. If that were true, you would say "mark adams".

I thought that was a relevant, and helpful correction on an oversight. You, however, were trying to say that my choice of intention spaces and syntax were a big problem. In comparision to personal perferences vs. a standard and simple rule of thumb all programmers practice, even in example, does not support your ridiculous claims to continue this.

Indendation can typically be considered style. However, it is a standard to keep your indentation consistent throughout your program. I never mentioned your style, only your consistency.

This has been pointed out time and time again. yet, you continue. It annoys people, quite obviously. Why don't you either admit the situation and facts, and end this persistant claim that is false, or just stop and end it? This is really getting sad. It's one thing to not agree, but to make up things for your own benefit about the events or the facts, just is not going to impress anyone. If you don't like me, fine. If you don't agree, fine. However, do not make the mistake of thinking people, in general, are going to allow you to do that and just sit idly by and act like it's okay. Just admit you don't agree, we have a different style and idea about how to do things -- nothing wrong with that. However, don't you dare, I remind you again, come in acting like I don't know what I'm doing. That's not going to work here, or in the Perl forums where everyone clearly disagreed with your hostile and juvinle attempts to win any debate. So, why fight it? Just end it, and save face while you do it if you want, but end it. I'm asking nicely. [/B]

Another selective reader. Did you even read the newsgroup posts? Anyway, I don't know who closed those threads to stop the perl discussion in the technical and security forum, but I suspect that you at least requested for the one that you started to be closed. I was fine with that. My post said all that I wanted to say. As I said before, go back and reread it whenever you want more informatoin. Because it seems that I just keep repeating myself. You are the one that continued your personal attack through the form of your signature line. I just gave my opinion on you in this thread that was obviously about you. If anyone wants to start a thread about me, and talk about me, they're welcome to. I hope that they do it without the name calling that you have done, and which I have never resorted to. But I can take it. Anyway, I'm not going to argue my points any more. They're lost on you, and since they're between us, you should really PM me, if you want to continue.

Now, this is honestly, just for fun... I couldn't possibly take this seriously... :-)

Originally posted by bitserve

Actually, I do visit the newsgroup regularly.


Does this make you an expert? Do you realize that I've had people that have written Perl books thank me and ask for my help and contributions? This, dating back to 1996 even when I was asked? Do you think reading a news group means something? You've shown that you don't know much, so how does that statement mean anything? Who cares!?


If you read other threads around here, you would realize that I'm away on "vacation" right now.


Oh, you're on "vacation", alright!


I have been discussing this whole perl thing with my brother, who is also a better programmer than tim, and better than me.


He, he.. This is funny. You know nothing about me, and because you're angry with me, now your brother is a better Perl coder than I am. Interesting deduction, Sherlock. Care to explain how you know this? Is your brother's name Randall Schwartz, or Tom Christiansen? If so, I'll throw in the towel now and never touch Perl again and throw away over 8 years of Perl programming experience and knowledge.


And we have been soliciting opinions to the group together.


What's your point? Does he post anonymously? Do you guy's "tag team" or what? Heh.


We can post as whoever we want.


Yeah, it's called "anonymously", "hiding" and "trolling". So, what name do you usually (you or your brother) post under? Hmmm? Do tell! Let us all check his qualifications, and yours. Okay? Since this is so relevant and important to this topic, let's just get it out of the way.


I do know that I have an opinion.


This is irrelavant to all of your rantings and claims.


There are no right or wrong opinions.


If my opinion is, that you don't exist, does that mean I'm not wrong?


I do not embarrass, and we are posting no more anonymously than hostquote.


You posted under "blah@blah.com", acted like you weren't even the "other guy" you were mentioning in that thread. You acted like you were a 3rd party viewer and just decided to post about two "other guys" argument, like you weren't being biased at all. Even when the time came as if you should say it's you, you didn't mention anything in response like it was you, especially when the guy called you a pinhead. Why? Because anyone that would argue using die, is a pinhead.


Is that your real name? If someone asked who we were, we'd identify ourselves.


Well, I can't speak for him, but if he claimed he posted in the Perl news groups all the time and then posted some anonymous post trying to incite people to attack someone's post on this forum, and acted like it wasn't him. I too would have to question your motive. However, I already am well aware of your motive and it's unkind to say the least.


Again with the selective reading.


Again with the irony. You're simply mad.


I never said it was a CGI script.


Read your own post, after you brought CGI into it on the news group, when everyone saud that yes, die is a GOOD thing. What don't you get?


I suggest you read the post again.


Refer to above...

You have this same weird mindset that tim has, which I don't get.


It's called "Logic", please look it up. You are obviously not grasping it.


You so much want to be irrational, rather than listening to another opinion.


Oh, this is rich!


Your selective quoting is nice.


My goodness, this guy is a stupid machine, never stopping, never ceasing.


Right after that he also said:

"In any case, as you noted yourself, these are examples. In real code a different treatment is often in order. In production code, however, a check should never be omitted, but sometimes skipping the file with a warning may be more appropriate than die()."


Yes, in production code and "sometimes". But, read the important part again, above that. He never agreed with you. He also never, never said that letting a program continue to run until it all completed was the best thing. People also said, if you can't open that file, you'll have a big problem and you should probably die. What don't YOU get about a standard exaple? Don't even dare try and act like if I gave a complete error checking routine that you'd have ever acted any different, bitserve. You know it, I know it, we all know it. So, GET OFF IT and END IT.


I know who he is, thank you.


I doubt you did. Sort of how every time you figure something out, you HAVE to claim "Tim probably didn't even know that" or "Tim didn't know that until I mentioned it". Not caring I had mentioned it previously or it's obvious. The point being, all this, all this for no reason and you're acting like a complete jerk. Why? I'm genuinely curious? There's no reason, and how ironic you continue to act like other people are being irrational. Now, I've explained this all to you, in how many different ways? How many times did I repeat myself? Are you for real!?????


Did you not notice that I mentioned the prestigous geeks who commented on this? Apparently not. Yes, he's one of them.


And he told you that you were wrong. How many of us that know better, have to tell you? He commented in that manner, after you KEPT ON, after NO ONE agreed with you, no one! Of course he had enough of YOUR TROLLING and called you a pinhead. What is he going to do? Huh? Waste his time explaining it to death, just to have you pull this same crap you are with me? What a waste of time. In fact. That said, I've said all I can say and all I want to say. I could go on pointing out how foolish and trollish you're being. I can point out how I didn't say this or that and how I obviously knew this or that. You can claim all those people in the news group that didn't agree with you, did. You can lie more, you can say whatever you want to save your ego and to try and make yourself look smater than I am about something you obviously don't know (to be arguing about it so much, when it's so obvious!), so why continue? I've had it. I'm not going to even post at this forum very often at all, while you are still here. You win, it's yours. You can have it all. All the gold, all the glory. You can earn the respect of people that don't care to know someone before they respect them, while the one's that do, will not respect you for this. You can whine and complain and lie all you like. No one who's opinion will matter to me, would ever even have gone this far into believing you. People see it for what it is, it's been said to death. We all get it, but you don't. I am appalled by your nonsense, lies and belliegerance and I relish the idea that you are guilty of everything you try and accuse me of (not knowing anything, being irrational, and on and on). This is an awesome insight into a distorted reality and I enjoyed it, but I refuse to surround myself by it. You can enjoy it and this all you like. You win. You've got it all, you're so wealthy in arrogance, who would I be to dare take that away. I don't have the time or desire for this nonsense. Good luck, really, you need it!

I totally don't get you. You continue to call me a troll and misread everything. I don't lie. You are the one intentionally misquoting everything. I like it when you do that, because then I can see how your selective reading is working, and why you're not understanding anything that is being said on the side of reason.

I have this entire time been making rational, informational comments. You have been name calling, and trying to prove your case with accusations and lies. I continue doing this, to try to explain, and you continue with the lies and name calling. This conversation has not progressed since post 1. But, it should not continue here. You really should PM your hate directly to me from now on.

In short:

Side A is arguing these points:

1. When posting code repairs of perl snippets, you should not assume that some die (not talking about error checks) statements should be added, beause you don't know what the intent of the program is.

2. If you want to go crazy adding error checks to someone else's code snippet, go ahead and go crazy. But don't assume that they want to die on the errors. You should assume that they don't want anything done that would require there not to be an error.

3. You should be expected to deal reasonably with someone providing their opinion on your code, especially if you provide your opinion on theirs.

4. Any perl coding style is pretty much nothing to argue about, but your style should at least stay consistent throughout a program.

5. When doing a string insertion, it's not proper to do a substitution instead.

Side B seems to only be arguing one point:

1. Let's prove side A's point 3 by saying side A is a skippy, a troll,
a two bit tool, and doesn't know anything.

REPEAT.

Unless someone changes their tactics, this is pointless.

Yes, I realize your claims. I get it. I already said you won. It's all yours. You win. Get over it. I'm not going to keep pointing out and explaining things to you, it'll never end. No matter what I do or say or prove, you will continue to claim just what you did above. It's really sad and it's not very encouraging. Look at it this way, you are a relentless enough troll, to make me just give up and say you won. Maybe at another time I'd just keep hounding you about it, until you actually started to get it, or maybe I just feel that sorry for you. No matter what, obviously, nothing anyone can say (I mean literally, *everything* that *anyone* has said, expert or general viewer, none agreeing with you once), will make any difference. Why do I know this? Because you have proven it. You claiming that "NO, YOU are the one that doesn't understand" is not a logical counter statement and it'll never stop. I know a troll when I see one. Really, enough, I am sick and tired of this. I think WHT has some "mute/killfile" type function, so I'll just kill your posts from my view and I needn't deal with this nonsense or see your shady posts anymore. Again, you won. Wallow in it, do whatever you're going to do. This is what you want, since you obvioulsy had absolutely no other intention, or you'd never have been posting this BS you have been -- so I don't even need to wonder. It's yours... Good riddens.

Thanks to the people that wished me well recently, since this big mess started polluting this thread. (I just wish the "ignore user" option would just completely rip out the user's posts so I don't even have to see their name, but oh well -- one for the suggestion forum). I appreciate all the good wishes and support. Cheers!

Seems as though this thread could use some cleaning.
Are there no mods here?



Congrats, again, Tim. :)

Agreed.

There seems to be no end in sight to this issue. We do appreciate the opinions Mark, Tim. However, I would have to say that neither side seems to want to admit that the other is right (when in actuality, the arguments don't seem that different). One of those Catholic vs. Protestant type of things... they're still arguing about that one. :D

At any rate, I would hope that each of you is able to continue coding in your own style. Obviously everyone is convinced that they are doing things the right way--so I say keep doing it that way, and don't worry about what other people are doing. If they're doing it wrong... it's their loss anyway, right? ;)

I have requested that this thread be locked... as the point seems to have been made (and then some). Anyone wanting to wish Tim luck and success is welcome to email him at tgreer_at_site5.com.

Thanks again for the kind words, all.

I was trying to make an example, not say that I am by any means a Perl expert. I am far from one actually.

I think you should be the one to go back and read the original post. If you do, you will notice that Tim simply tried to improve your code and point out a few issues that could be improved. You couldn't take that though.

Now that we have completely taken this off topic, I would just like to offer my congrats to Tim again. As Matt and Tim said, everyone has their own coding style that works best for them. You obviously know more then me in this area, so I am going to stop arguing now before I make a complete fool out of myself.. :D

Originally posted by bitserve


So you also would personally attack me?

You've been coding perl for a whole year?

I say, go back and read the original post, and see who has been the most difficult in this situation. It's tim, not I.

Tim did not correct any errors in my code. There weren't any.

As I said before, he could provide his opinion on my code, but could not handle my doing the same thing back.

Well, although I did find some interesting sites from searching for info about Mark Jason Dominus, I think that all the good info is about done in the thread (possibly 2 pages ago), and yes, I wish Tim the best as well, and that was the point.