Posts Tagged ‘rant’

To be honest, I don’t read technical books much. I prefer reading the official documentation for a product I need to work with, or use some other ways to get information about it. I always assumed people who write such books are experts though. There are many book authors on Stack Overflow, but today I encountered a particularly interesting situation with one of them.

Somebody asked a question about a Perl module a few days ago and based on reading the source code of the module, I gave them one possible way to solve the problem. Today, an author of multiple Perl books came in and very confidently claimed that my solution will never work. I explained him why he is wrong, but it didn’t help. The problem was that he failed to read the source code correctly and made incorrect assumptions based on that. I pointed him to specific parts of the code, still nothing. At that point I wanted to gave up, but later he came up with a broken example, which didn’t work for different reasons, that should show me why I’m wrong. Soon after that he realized what is wrong about the example, changed his answer and deleted all his old comments, as if they never happened.

The problem I see is not this specific case (I’ve seen far more of them, either on Stack Overflow or some IRC channels), but the fact that even average programmers write popular programming books. And people learn from these books. I guess the saying about teachers who failed to apply their knowledge in practice, which I can’t remember right now, applies even for book authors. What a wonderful world.

(I just needed to get this out of myself.)

When I have some free time and I’m bored, I try to help people at Stack Overflow.  Recently the owners of Stack Overflow launched a site where you can post your CV, which are linked to your Stack Overflow account, and companies can search them. Nice idea. But the business model behind it makes it horrible. This blog post by Joel Spolsky actually made me write this rant. Stack Overflow is obviously doing very good at getting money from ads. People answering questions over there actually make them money, as they increase the value of the site. (They still display ads even to those people, which is something I also don’t get, but with Adblock Plus, I don’t care.) The thing is that they charge job seekers for having their CV searchable within the site. The official reason for that is that they want to ensure that everybody who has their CV listed there is actively looking for a job. If that’s so, why are they raising the price from $29 to $99? $29 should do just as well for filtering the people who post their CV “just because they can”. I have real trouble imagining any competent programmer (who actively contributes to Stack Overflow, therefore makes sure they get their ad revenue) would want to pay to get his CV listed on the site. It’s not about the money though, it’s about the principle. I wouldn’t pay for such a service, just like I wouldn’t send my CV to a recruitment agency.