Funny Perl/Acronym Flame

Subject: 
            Re: FAQ: Why FreeBSD is better? (v1.2)
       Date: 
            18 Apr 1999 07:07:25 -0700
       From: 
            Tom Christiansen 
Organization: 
            Perl Consulting and Training
 Newsgroups: 
            comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
  References: 
            1 , 2 , 3


In comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc, thepinkpages@usa.net writes:
:Well, what do you know. I'm amazed.
:    As stated in many books, PERL is an acronym.
:    Therefore, correctly it should be all capitals.

Speaking as something of an authority on this matter, I'm afraid that
I'm right here, and you're wrong.  What are you going to do next, argue
with Dennis about what he really intended the for() construct to do in C?
Get some sense of proportion and history, kid.

Larry chose the name for its sound after searching through every common
four-letter and five-letter word in the dictionary.  The gloss was chosen
post facto after he found a word whose semantic and cultural connotations
he found pleasant.  This has been written about a great deal.

Even if you were right -- and you aren't -- I don't see you advocating
writing RADAR and SCUBA.  It just looks like some dumb kid on an
old-style teletype.

:    Tradenames are also all capitals, like UNIX.

Good, you're wrong again.  Haven't you ever read what
Dennis said about this?

    Some people are confused over whether this word is
    appropriately `UNIX' or `Unix'; both forms are common, and used
    interchangeably. Dennis Ritchie says that the `UNIX' spelling
    originally happened in CACM's 1974 paper "The UNIX Time-Sharing
    System" because "we had a new typesetter and {troff} had just been
    invented and we were intoxicated by being able to produce small
    caps." Later, dmr tried to get the spelling changed to `Unix'
    in a couple of Bell Labs papers, on the grounds that the word
    is not acronymic. He failed, and eventually (his words) "wimped
    out" on the issue. So, while the trademark today is `UNIX', both
    capitalizations are grounded in ancient usage; the Jargon File uses
    `Unix' in deference to dmr's wishes.

Respect the author's wishes.

:    If Larry wants it "Perl", tell him to make a big
:    deal about it, else drop it.

I'm sure it never occurred to him that people would screw it up.
As before, you could do worse than respecting the author's wishes.
In fact, you *are* doing worse, since you are currently ignoring those
authors' wishes.  Perhaps you did so out of ignorance.  That excuse is
now null and void, as I have just enlightened you of the correct forms.
Further orthographic transgressions shall be counted against not ignorance,
but stupidity.

:>2) Never write "$_ =~" anywhere -- it's completely redundant
:>   to the point of being unidiomatically misleading.
:>
:   I wrote redundant on purpose.

No, you did not write redundant, on purpose or otherwise. You merely
wrote redundanty.  I wrote "redundant".

:   I'm not sure what "unidiomatically" means, 

Then I suggest that you consult a dictionary.  Command of written
languages must necessarily antedate command of programming languages.
I can't believe you're arguing matters of word-choice with me when
you yourself have just admitted you don't even understand the English
language.  Please waste someone else's time.

:   but I do
:   know that it is neither incorrect nor wrong.

It's exceedingly bad Perl style, so bad as to be confusing and misleading.
Then again, perhaps this is just a reflection of your general language
skill, or lack thereof.

Illiteracy is seldom convincing in a written forum.  Inaccuracy is seldom
convincing in a technical one.  You, sir, have fallen prey to both sins.
No one is going to pay attention to you when your sloppiness in expression
leads to inaccuracy.  The sole mechanism you have for persuasion in
this medium is your written word.  The undercurrent in your message is
"I am a careless person".  How do you expect to be taken seriously?

I suggest that unless you are a troll bent upon immolation and conflict,
that you step back and consider honing the craft of wordsmithing with
which your would-be "FAQ" is -- or at least, should be -- written.
In the case that you are mere Usenet drivel artlessly seeking conflict
and strife, then welcome to the world's killfile, for you do not even
exhibit a flare for inciting riots in a creative and entertaining fashion.

--tom, in his 17th year of posting to Usenet.
-- 
 It's a billworld after all
 It's a billworld after all
 It's a billworld after all
 It's a bill, bill world.

And its equally amusing response

On 18 Apr 1999 07:07:25 -0700, Tom Christiansen 
wrote:

>In comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc, thepinkpages@usa.net writes:
>:Well, what do you know. I'm amazed.
>:    As stated in many books, PERL is an acronym.
>:    Therefore, correctly it should be all capitals.
>
>Speaking as something of an authority on this matter, I'm afraid that
>I'm right here, and you're wrong.  
>
    Your authority is misplaced. Mods suck, MakeMaker sucks, 
    and pods suck.

>What are you going to do next, argue
>with Dennis about what he really intended the for() construct to do in C?
>Get some sense of proportion and history, kid.
>
    Unrelated.

>Larry chose the name for its sound after searching through every common
>four-letter and five-letter word in the dictionary.  The gloss was chosen
>post facto after he found a word whose semantic and cultural connotations
>he found pleasant.  This has been written about a great deal.
>
    Babble. Myth inspired by the need to recount digits.

>Even if you were right -- and you aren't -- I don't see you advocating
>writing RADAR and SCUBA.  It just looks like some dumb kid on an
>old-style teletype.
>
    I am advocating writing RADAR and SCUBA, and my tty is currently
    disconnected. :-)

>:    Tradenames are also all capitals, like UNIX.
>
>Good, you're wrong again.  Haven't you ever read what
>Dennis said about this?
>
    No, and at this point your just ranting anyway.

>Respect the author's wishes.
>
    I will when I hear them.

>:    If Larry wants it "Perl", tell him to make a big
>:    deal about it, else drop it.
>
>I'm sure it never occurred to him that people would screw it up.
>.....[SNIP].....
>but stupidity.
>
    It's always occurs to me. And I don't beleive Larry is stupid.

>:>2) Never write "$_ =~" anywhere -- it's completely redundant
>:>   to the point of being unidiomatically misleading.
>:>
>:   I wrote redundant on purpose.
>
>No, you did not write redundant, on purpose or otherwise. You merely
>wrote redundanty.  I wrote "redundant".
>
    I think I'll try to be nice for any other comments.
    Since you seem to be happier in an en-Flamed state than
    being reasonable.

>:   I'm not sure what "unidiomatically" means, 
>
>Then I suggest that you consult a dictionary.  Command of written
>languages must necessarily antedate command of programming languages.
>I can't believe you're arguing matters of word-choice with me when
>you yourself have just admitted you don't even understand the English
>language.  Please waste someone else's time.
>
    I did consult the dictionary.
    (http://work.ucsd.edu:5141/cgi-bin/http_webster)

    Perhaps you can suggest a better one.
    And I am not arguing your word choices.
    "I admitted I don't understand English"?!?, where did I make
    this statement.?
        

>:   but I do
>:   know that it is neither incorrect nor wrong.
>
>It's exceedingly bad Perl style, so bad as to be confusing and misleading.
>Then again, perhaps this is just a reflection of your general language
>skill, or lack thereof.
>
    How about instead I'm trying to relate on a level that is
    exceedingly obvious instead, because that is what I am trying
    to do.

>Illiteracy is seldom convincing in a written forum.
>
    Yes, but no always true.

>Inaccuracy is seldom convincing in a technical one. 
>
    Yes, if you are trying to convince someone of
    technical correctness.

>You, sir, have fallen prey to both sins.
>
    Not here.

>No one is going to pay attention to you when your sloppiness in expression
>leads to inaccuracy.
>
    I certainly have your attention.

>The sole mechanism you have for persuasion in this medium is your written word.
>    
    I believe I have a bit more.

> The undercurrent in your message is "I am a careless person".
>
    No that is only your interpetation. And one I won't argue
    with you about.

> How do you expect to be taken seriously?
>
    I'm taken seriouly all the time. And those that don't, don't
    even see what I write.

>I suggest that unless you are a troll bent upon immolation and conflict,
>that you step back and consider honing the craft of wordsmithing with
>which your would-be "FAQ" is -- or at least, should be -- written.
>
    I am not a troll.
    I am considering it currently, as I've stated, and I see no reason
    to change what I've written or how I write it.

>In the case that you are mere Usenet drivel artlessly seeking conflict
>and strife, then welcome to the world's killfile, for you do not even
>exhibit a flare for inciting riots in a creative and entertaining fashion.
>
    Thank you for your kind words.
==========================================

    Let me state finally. 

    1) That if Larry Wall wants to use 
       only Perl vs. PERL then he should, as you should, see the 
       world is round. We do write IBM, Ibm and ibm, 
       HP, Hp and hp, and ANSI, Ansi and ansi.

    2) When I wrote $ =~ //, I knew it was redundant, many people
       who write perl know it was redundant, many people who read perl
       said, "Oh, he is being redundant!", people that don't know
       perl said, "what was that dribble?", you saw it was redundant.
       So what?!?

    3) The whole purpose of the line I wrote orignally in the FAQ 
       was 'if you do not like what I write', put me in your
       killfile. If you don't like what I write, Tom, put me 
       in your killfile.

    Get off your high horse Tom. 

   
---
Any questions see:
FAQ: who is Jesus Monroy why should you care