david at cantrell.org.uk
Thu Jul 26 20:59:21 BST 2007
On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 05:33:10PM +0100, Peter Hickman wrote:
> Tom Hukins wrote:
> >What would an interesting Perl job look like?
> How about "here's a problem, solve it"?
I'd prefer "here's a customer, help them define what their problem is
and *then* solve it".
TBH, I'd at least look at anything that wasn't yet another web thing
selling shite to the drooling cretinous masses. Jobs that I would find
interesting and have the skills for *are* out there. Some of them can
even afford to pay enough. But most of them have something else about
them that I don't like.
Naturally, at times when I *need* to look for a job, I'll let my
standards slip. I don't mind the cretinous masses *at all* then :-)
And if the employer is really good at their job, which is primarily
"keep the people who do the work happy", then they might actually get to
My rejection of web shit is somewhat like the way employers say "must
have 5 years using $particular_database". It's a blunt instrument that
rejects an awful lot of tedious crap at the expense of also rejecting
some stuff that might be worth considering.
David Cantrell | London Perl Mongers Deputy Chief Heretic
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity
-- Hanlon's Razor
Stupidity maintained long enough is a form of malice
-- Richard Bos's corollary
More information about the london.pm