When I first saw this thread, I laughed like it was going out of style. It certainly seems like we're taking ourselves too seriously. Whatever...
But let me shift gears here and "get into the spirit of things".
General Kenobi wrote:
Only a Sith deals in absolutes.
Oooopppsss!!! Did I say that?
Seriously, I feel that McGruff's offending comments should be removed immediately. Why? Well, let me start with a question. What if I said in response...
Yeah, we've had problems with frequent anti procedural/functional/(insert favorite non-OO paradigm here) trolls.
Who do you think would've been the first person to get <span style='color:blue' title='I'm naughty, are you naughty?'>smurf</span>? Of course, it would've been deemed blastphemous from the preisthood and all sorts of fire
and derision would rain down.
But instead, I asked that McGreivous...errr...McGruff merely change her tone. Here are the simple reasons why.
1) It was inflammatory (straight troll speed when you get right down to it). There is huge potential here to step on a lot of toes.
2) Advancement has
NEVER been acheived by/in rigid institutions. Go back and read what Charles Babbage had to go through, yet he laid the
very foundation of the modern day computer. All of those well speaking and well dressed individuals of lofty station, towing the line all the while have indeed
been proved wrong. There are a lot of people that can see through such an institution. Good for them! But what of those that are not yet at that point? Do we present
them with simplistic maxims or show them all sides and
ALL criticisms. It seems clear that McGruff's view of this board is rather black and white. Which in
is absolutely hilarious when one considers the origons upon which our endeavors are based (a reference back to Charles Babbage and the fact that he and
his work was ultimately derided and thought little of).
In light of number 1), he does the very thing in the very same sentence that is meant to discourage such behaviour. Is
THIS the outward face that this board
should present? To go one step further, he then manuevers behind the legalaties (rules) of our present institution (this board)
AS IF to say, "The rules
don't apply to me!". Well history has proven that justice becomes unjust when the lawmakers aren't subject to the rule of law.
Going further, I think things said in public should be addressed in public. McGruff's statement was a negative broadcast into a public forum.
AND IT'S STILL THERE!.
Now that this board is seen (as evidenced by the post in question) as a staunch, rigid, boot wearing supporter of OOP, what will you do when those that understand
the ramifications of what's going, the very sames ones that also make fantastic programmers and linguists, decide not to participate?
So I said all that to say,
"LIGHTEN UP!"
And one more thing. I got two private messages in my box surrounding this whole thing. Well....
1) I didn't read them. Had better things to do.
2) Why should I be getting them? The problem lies in the fact that we obviously think that someone that hasn't reached the lofty and pious level of OOP priest is of low station. Or am I deemed of low station so when I open my mouth I should be slapped down?
3) Of course, it may be an apology, but if a politician did that shiza in a public forum, he or she would have a press conference and apologize.
Once again. You Einstiens broke it in public. Fix it in public!
And no, this isn't about OOP! This is about how this board is seen as the result of someones behaviour.