If it's not a tutorial then i don't understand why he explains EXTREMELY basic things in the worst possible way, fails to actually explain the interesting details of subtle and complex things (like the differences between the ways a sub can be called (no, they do NOT all do the same thing)), and managed to produce a document that looks like it contains literally ALL the things from ALL the bad tutorials i've seen in the past 9 years, with nothing from any of the good ones.
It appears that you've decided it must be a tutorial, and your only basis for that is that it's not a tutorial. That's extremely uncharitable, almost insanely so. Especially since the word "tutorial" appears nowhere in the text. The only reference to learning or teaching is a list of resources for actually learning Perl.
Actually, he does appear to explain &foo() later on, he just doesn't bother mentioning up front that it's completely different.
I think if you consider it as an academic piece, where you're supposed to read all of it and then think, it wouldn't be a bad introduction to perl as it was written in 2003.
Okay, I've read a few of Might's posts, and they're pretty interesting. But it irks me for some reason that nowhere in the posts can I find a date. Am I missing something? Where did you grab this 2003?
