perl should be improved and perl6

perl provides good things and bad ones.

In the good thing, such as:
* it is adapted for text processing
* it is poorly typed
* it is enough powerful with unicode
* provide arrays and hash and reference (and objects)
* transparently manage any kind of numbers.
* is C interfacable
* has basic network and IPC possibilities
* pack/unpack


In the bad things, such as:
* bytes/unicode confusion
* stack overflow within bad regular expression
* memory consumption (might be an issue when energy will be more expensive?)
* insufficient typing
* some portability issue, notably with function «system».
* some $@% issues.
* pack limitation: cannot just modify one byte.



perl6 looks like a cleanup of perl, but I am wondering:

how will memory be handled in perl6?
how will bytes be handled in perl6?
why perl6 encourages complex regex (as x become standard)?
how will perl6 address portability issues?
how will perl6 address IPC issues?

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

>>>>> "j" == jm writes:

j> perl provides good things and bad ones.
j> In the good thing, such as:
j> * it is adapted for text processing
j> * it is poorly typed

me thinks you don't understand typing well. perl actually has stronger
typing than many langs. it just types on the variable type (scalar vs
array vs hash) instead of the data type.

j> * it is enough powerful with unicode
j> * provide arrays and hash and reference (and objects)
j> * transparently manage any kind of numbers.
j> * is C interfacable
j> * has basic network and IPC possibilities

basic??? cpan has modules for almost every protocol out there and IPC
support is all done too. you don't know perl well if you say this is basic.

j> * pack/unpack

that is a major part of perl? it is used but not that often by most
coders.


j> In the bad things, such as:
j> * bytes/unicode confusion
j> * stack overflow within bad regular expression

huh?? then don't write bad regexes. most likely if it blows up in perl
it will do worse in other langs.

j> * memory consumption (might be an issue when energy will be more expensive?)
what?? you are smoking very strange stuff. ram is cheap and always
getting cheaper. cpu speed is the power hog.

j> * insufficient typing

again, you don't know what you are talking about.

j> * some portability issue, notably with function «system».

proof of the last comment. system is the way to call external
programs. how could that POSSIBLY BE PORTABLE if the external programs
vary from box to box?

j> * some $@% issues.

no, you have some issues.

j> * pack limitation: cannot just modify one byte.

huh??? pack doesn't modify anything. pack converts a list of values to a
single buffer string. and the C format can pack a single byte.


j> perl6 looks like a cleanup of perl, but I am wondering:

j> how will memory be handled in perl6?

just find with true gc.

j> how will bytes be handled in perl6?

with stone tablets.

j> why perl6 encourages complex regex (as x become standard)?

wtf are you babbling about? perl6 has grammars and rules which blow away
all current regex engines. you need to read up on them. in fact you can
use a bunch of it in perl5 now with cpan modules.

j> how will perl6 address portability issues?

what issues?

j> how will perl6 address IPC issues?

again, what issues? there are no IPC issues, other than your
delusions. perl has fine IPC.

uri

--
Uri Guttman ------ uri@stemsystems.com -------- http://www.sysarch.com --
----- Perl Code Review , Architecture, Development, Training, Support ------
--------- Free Perl Training --- http://perlhunter.com/college.html ---------
--------- Gourmet Hot Cocoa Mix ---- http://bestfriendscocoa.com ---------

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

jm schreef:

> perl [...] is poorly typed

By you? (Did you mean Perl by the way?)

--
Affijn, Ruud

"Gewoon is een tijger."

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

Dr.Ruud wrote:
> jm schreef:
>
>> perl [...] is poorly typed
>
> By you? (Did you mean Perl by the way?)

Honestly, you know full well he was talking about the programming
language that pertains to this here news group, so feign ignorance? I
mean why is this even such an issue? Other places where people talk
about programming languages don't seem to care if it's all caps, first
only capitalized, or all lowercase, or what have you. I've seen Java,
java, and JAVA, cpp, C++, c++, c, C, python, PYTHON, cobol, Cobol,
COBOL, and the list goes on.

So why make such a stink about something so damn trivial? Does it make
you feel special? Perl is great, but I've always thought some of it's
backers (at least in this group) could use a dose of reality and stop
behaving like such self-important elitists and come back down to Earth.
This BS just keeps on repeating and it serves no one any good
whatsoever.

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

"V.Ronans" wrote:
> Dr.Ruud wrote:
> > jm schreef:
> >
> >> perl [...] is poorly typed
> >
> > By you? (Did you mean Perl by the way?)
>
> Honestly, you know full well he was talking about the programming
> language that pertains to this here news group, so feign ignorance? I
> mean why is this even such an issue? Other places where people talk
> about programming languages don't seem to care if it's all caps, first
> only capitalized, or all lowercase, or what have you. I've seen Java,
> java, and JAVA, cpp, C++, c++, c, C, python, PYTHON, cobol, Cobol,
> COBOL, and the list goes on.
>
> So why make such a stink about something so damn trivial?

Programming requires attention to detail. Well, good programming does,
anyway.

Xho

--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the
payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked
advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate
this fact.

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

xhoster@gmail.com wrote:
> "V.Ronans" wrote:
>> Dr.Ruud wrote:
>>> jm schreef:
>>>
>>>> perl [...] is poorly typed
>>>
>>> By you? (Did you mean Perl by the way?)
>>
>> Honestly, you know full well he was talking about the programming
>> language that pertains to this here news group, so feign ignorance? I
>> mean why is this even such an issue? Other places where people talk
>> about programming languages don't seem to care if it's all caps,
>> first only capitalized, or all lowercase, or what have you. I've
>> seen Java, java, and JAVA, cpp, C++, c++, c, C, python, PYTHON,
>> cobol, Cobol, COBOL, and the list goes on.
>>
>> So why make such a stink about something so damn trivial?
>
> Programming requires attention to detail. Well, good programming
> does, anyway.

Yes, when _programming_, not with geenral petty conversations, such
responses as "it's Perl not perl or PERL" serve NO PURPOSE. Arguably
neither does this leg of the thread, but that because people like you
refuse to pull out your heads for some fresh air.

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

>>>>> "VR" == V Ronans writes:

VR> xhoster@gmail.com wrote:
>> "V.Ronans" wrote:
>>> Dr.Ruud wrote:
>>>> jm schreef:
>>>>
>>>>> perl [...] is poorly typed
>>>>
>>>> By you? (Did you mean Perl by the way?)
>>>
>>> Honestly, you know full well he was talking about the programming
>>> language that pertains to this here news group, so feign ignorance? I
>>> mean why is this even such an issue? Other places where people talk
>>> about programming languages don't seem to care if it's all caps,
>>> first only capitalized, or all lowercase, or what have you. I've
>>> seen Java, java, and JAVA, cpp, C++, c++, c, C, python, PYTHON,
>>> cobol, Cobol, COBOL, and the list goes on.
>>>
>>> So why make such a stink about something so damn trivial?
>>
>> Programming requires attention to detail. Well, good programming
>> does, anyway.

VR> Yes, when _programming_, not with geenral petty conversations, such
VR> responses as "it's Perl not perl or PERL" serve NO PURPOSE. Arguably
VR> neither does this leg of the thread, but that because people like you
VR> refuse to pull out your heads for some fresh air.

oh please remove your own cranium from your rectum first. you don't seem
to be a regular here and misspelling perl is a common thing among
posters who also don't post according to this group's guidelines. it is
even covered in an FAQ why perl is not an acronym. yes, colloquially
perl and other langs can be in whatever case but seeing it wrong when it
can be corrected is not the crime you make it out to be. so get yourself
off this flame war now and shut up about it until you are someone who
regularly answers questions here. the rule is no bitching about how
others help here until you help regularly and well.

uri

--
Uri Guttman ------ uri@stemsystems.com -------- http://www.sysarch.com --
----- Perl Code Review , Architecture, Development, Training, Support ------
--------- Free Perl Training --- http://perlhunter.com/college.html ---------
--------- Gourmet Hot Cocoa Mix ---- http://bestfriendscocoa.com ---------

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

"V.Ronans" wrote:

> Dr.Ruud wrote:
>> jm schreef:
>>
>>> perl [...] is poorly typed
>>
>> By you? (Did you mean Perl by the way?)
>
> Honestly, you know full well he was talking about the programming
> language that pertains to this here news group, so feign ignorance? I
> mean why is this even such an issue? Other places where people talk
> about programming languages don't seem to care if it's all caps,

There are already plenty of people who think PERL is an acronym (it's
not), so "we" like to avoid PERL.

Moreover, Perl is the programming language, and perl is the executable,
hence there is a good reason to be case sensitive. Hence, perl [...] is
poorly typed seems to refer to the executable, hence Dr. Ruud's question.

--
John

http://johnbokma.com/perl/

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

"V.Ronans" wrote:


> Yes, when _programming_, not with geenral petty conversations, such
> responses as "it's Perl not perl or PERL" serve NO PURPOSE.

Yes they do:

A perl programmer is not the same as a Perl programmer.
A perl hacker is not the same as a Perl hacker.

And as I already wrote, PERL misleads people, they see PERL, and they
think it's an acronym.

I also use it as a quick way to see if someone knows what he/she is
talking about. Someone who claims to be a PERL programmer tells me that I
probably never want to maintain his/her code.

--
John

http://johnbokma.com/perl/

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

Uri Guttman wrote:
>>>>>> "VR" == V Ronans writes:
>
>> xhoster@gmail.com wrote:
> >> "V.Ronans" wrote:
> >>> Dr.Ruud wrote:
> >>>> jm schreef:
> >>>>
> >>>>> perl [...] is poorly typed
> >>>>
> >>>> By you? (Did you mean Perl by the way?)
> >>>
> >>> Honestly, you know full well he was talking about the programming
> >>> language that pertains to this here news group, so feign
> ignorance? I >>> mean why is this even such an issue? Other places
> where people talk >>> about programming languages don't seem to care
> if it's all caps, >>> first only capitalized, or all lowercase, or
> what have you. I've >>> seen Java, java, and JAVA, cpp, C++, c++, c,
> C, python, PYTHON, >>> cobol, Cobol, COBOL, and the list goes on.
> >>>
> >>> So why make such a stink about something so damn trivial?
> >>
> >> Programming requires attention to detail. Well, good programming
> >> does, anyway.
>
>> Yes, when _programming_, not with geenral petty conversations, such
>> responses as "it's Perl not perl or PERL" serve NO PURPOSE. Arguably
>> neither does this leg of the thread, but that because people like you
>> refuse to pull out your heads for some fresh air.
>
> you don't seem to be a regular here

I'm a regular reader.

> and misspelling perl is a common thing among

1) It wasn't misspelled in this case, be maybe mis-cased.

2) I'm not sure you should be preaching about using proper grammar when
you don't even bother to capitalize the first letter of your sentences.

> posters who also don't post according to this group's guidelines. it
> is even covered in an FAQ why perl is not an acronym.

Actually it is also an acronym:


http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=perl

The spelling "Perl" is preferred over the older "PERL" (even though some
explain the language's name as originating in the acronym for "Practical
Extraction and Report Language"). The program that interprets/compiles
Perl code is called "perl", typically "/usr/local/bin/perl" or
"/usr/bin/perl".



http://www.acronymfinder.com/af-query.asp?Acronym=perl&strin g=exact

"Practical Extraction and Report Language"


There is a known acronym PERL out there, so I really do not think you
can blame people for using it.


> perl and other langs can be in whatever case but seeing it wrong when
> it can be corrected is not the crime you make it out to be.

I NEVER said it was a crime. Please do NOT insert words into my mouth.
My gripe has been and is with the way some of you choose to "correct"
it; namely, the sarcastic attitude. Again, this serves no useful purpose
other than to make such people you are attempting to correct perhaps
look at you with a strange look and wonder why you care so much,
especially when you don't even care enough to properly case your words.

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

John Bokma wrote:
> "V.Ronans" wrote:
>
>> Dr.Ruud wrote:
>>> jm schreef:
>>>
>>>> perl [...] is poorly typed
>>>
>>> By you? (Did you mean Perl by the way?)
>>
>> Honestly, you know full well he was talking about the programming
>> language that pertains to this here news group, so feign ignorance? I
>> mean why is this even such an issue? Other places where people talk
>> about programming languages don't seem to care if it's all caps,
>
> There are already plenty of people who think PERL is an acronym (it's
> not), so "we" like to avoid PERL.
>
> Moreover, Perl is the programming language, and perl is the
> executable, hence there is a good reason to be case sensitive. Hence,
> perl [...] is poorly typed seems to refer to the executable, hence
> Dr. Ruud's question.

As someone else pointed out, in many other groups centered around a
particular programming language, no one pays this kind of attention of
people like your self seem to. Second, why is it people like yourself
can never give a straight answer as to why it is of such high
importance? If someone is a good programmer with the Perl language, does
it really make a difference how they spell it as long as they know what
they are doing? I mean you have people like Abigail who use their own
quote characters, Uri who can't use a bloody shift key, etc, and you're
worried about how some random bloke cases the word/term Perl?

--
G.Etly

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

John Bokma wrote:
> "V.Ronans" wrote:
>
>
>> Yes, when _programming_, not with geenral petty conversations, such
>> responses as "it's Perl not perl or PERL" serve NO PURPOSE.
>
> Yes they do:
>
> A perl programmer is not the same as a Perl programmer.
> A perl hacker is not the same as a Perl hacker.

There is no real difference. Only someone who wants to be so incredibly
close minded might give a flying hoot.

You could say a normal person's mind might implicitly do a lc(..) on
those two lines and they end up eq'ing.

> And as I already wrote, PERL misleads people, they see PERL, and they
> think it's an acronym.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=PERL

The spelling "Perl" is preferred over the older "PERL" (even though
some explain the language's name as originating in the acronym for
"Practical Extraction and Report Language"). The program that
interprets/compiles Perl code is called "perl", typically
"/usr/local/bin/perl" or "/usr/bin/perl".

> I also use it as a quick way to see if someone knows what he/she is
> talking about. Someone who claims to be a PERL programmer tells me
> that I probably never want to maintain his/her code.

That's a very poor measuring stick. Seems also hypocritical, considering
some of the more well known people in this group are known for doing
thing differently (Abigail for her interesting alternate forms of
quoting in replies, Uri for his inability to use the shift key, and so
forth), to judge some random bloke who may also choose to be different.

--
G.Etly

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

"V.Ronans" wrote:

> Actually it is also an acronym:

From Wikipedia:
"The name is occasionally given as "PERL" (for Practical Extraction and
Report Language). Although the expansion has prevailed in many of today's
manuals, including the official Perl man page, it is merely a *backronym*.
The name does not officially stand for anything, so spelling it in all
caps is incorrect."


Robotic Operational Neohuman Assembled for Nocturnal Sabotage

--
John

http://johnbokma.com/perl/

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

>>>>> "VR" == V Ronans writes:

VR> Uri Guttman wrote:

VR> I'm a regular reader.

not a regular contributor. that downgrades your comments here. by a lot.


VR> 2) I'm not sure you should be preaching about using proper grammar when
VR> you don't even bother to capitalize the first letter of your sentences.

WELL I CAN HIT THE SHIFT KEY IF YOU WANT!!!

>> posters who also don't post according to this group's guidelines. it
>> is even covered in an FAQ why perl is not an acronym.

VR> Actually it is also an acronym:

wrong.

VR> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=perl

VR> The spelling "Perl" is preferred over the older "PERL" (even though some
VR> explain the language's name as originating in the acronym for "Practical
VR> Extraction and Report Language"). The program that interprets/compiles
VR> Perl code is called "perl", typically "/usr/local/bin/perl" or
VR> "/usr/bin/perl".

wrong again.

VR> http://www.acronymfinder.com/af-query.asp?Acronym=perl&strin g=exact

VR> "Practical Extraction and Report Language"

wrong one more time.

VR> There is a known acronym PERL out there, so I really do not think you
VR> can blame people for using it.

and it was first named pearl after larry wall's mother. but that name
was already taken by another language so he dropped the 'a'.

FROM THE PERL FAQ (a more definitive source than the crap you posted):

What's the difference between "perl" and "Perl"?

One bit. Oh, you weren't talking ASCII? :-) Larry now uses
"Perl" to signify the language proper and "perl" the
implementation of it, i.e. the current interpreter. Hence
Tom's quip that "Nothing but perl can parse Perl." You may
or may not choose to follow this usage. For example,
parallelism means "awk and perl" and "Python and Perl" look
OK, while "awk and Perl" and "Python and perl" do not. But
never write "PERL", because perl is not an acronym,
apocryphal folklore and post-facto expansions
notwithstanding.


>> perl and other langs can be in whatever case but seeing it wrong when
>> it can be corrected is not the crime you make it out to be.

VR> I NEVER said it was a crime. Please do NOT insert words into my
VR> mouth. My gripe has been and is with the way some of you choose
VR> to "correct" it; namely, the sarcastic attitude. Again, this
VR> serves no useful purpose other than to make such people you are
VR> attempting to correct perhaps look at you with a strange look and
VR> wonder why you care so much, especially when you don't even care
VR> enough to properly case your words.

you tone is worse than anyone who comments on perl vs PERL. so meet the
pot, kettle.

as for my casing, that is your problem. i choose to case my postings
this way. my documentation, POD, writing, teaching, slides are all cased
as others want them.

uri

--
Uri Guttman ------ uri@stemsystems.com -------- http://www.sysarch.com --
----- Perl Code Review , Architecture, Development, Training, Support ------
--------- Free Perl Training --- http://perlhunter.com/college.html ---------
--------- Gourmet Hot Cocoa Mix ---- http://bestfriendscocoa.com ---------

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

>>>>> "GE" == Gordon Etly writes:

GE> As someone else pointed out, in many other groups centered around a
GE> particular programming language, no one pays this kind of attention of
GE> people like your self seem to. Second, why is it people like yourself
GE> can never give a straight answer as to why it is of such high
GE> importance? If someone is a good programmer with the Perl language, does
GE> it really make a difference how they spell it as long as they know what
GE> they are doing? I mean you have people like Abigail who use their own
GE> quote characters, Uri who can't use a bloody shift key, etc, and you're
GE> worried about how some random bloke cases the word/term Perl?

because it is the newer users who need to learn the difference. saying
'perl' or 'PERL' has a bug are very different. being technically
accurate is a critical skill to a coder so using the correct name for
the language vs the compiler vs a backronym is important. if a perl
hacker wannabe can't get that right, they need to be told about it. i
have the same issue when i see jobs for 'PERL'. that is important to me
as i work in the job placement field and would never use that form.

uri

--
Uri Guttman ------ uri@stemsystems.com -------- http://www.sysarch.com --
----- Perl Code Review , Architecture, Development, Training, Support ------
--------- Free Perl Training --- http://perlhunter.com/college.html ---------
--------- Gourmet Hot Cocoa Mix ---- http://bestfriendscocoa.com ---------

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

>>>>> "GE" == Gordon Etly writes:

GE> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=PERL

GE> The spelling "Perl" is preferred over the older "PERL" (even though
GE> some explain the language's name as originating in the acronym for
GE> "Practical Extraction and Report Language"). The program that
GE> interprets/compiles Perl code is called "perl", typically
GE> "/usr/local/bin/perl" or "/usr/bin/perl".


that is very wrong. see my other post about this. perl was never
originally an acronym and you can ask larry. hmm, maybe i should the
next time i have dinner with him.

>> I also use it as a quick way to see if someone knows what he/she is
>> talking about. Someone who claims to be a PERL programmer tells me
>> that I probably never want to maintain his/her code.

GE> That's a very poor measuring stick. Seems also hypocritical, considering
GE> some of the more well known people in this group are known for doing
GE> thing differently (Abigail for her interesting alternate forms of
GE> quoting in replies, Uri for his inability to use the shift key, and so
GE> forth), to judge some random bloke who may also choose to be different.

you are saying the same garbage again. try to be original in your
flamage. me thinks i should also judge your perl code based on your poor
postings. do you have a cpan id?

uri

--
Uri Guttman ------ uri@stemsystems.com -------- http://www.sysarch.com --
----- Perl Code Review , Architecture, Development, Training, Support ------
--------- Free Perl Training --- http://perlhunter.com/college.html ---------
--------- Gourmet Hot Cocoa Mix ---- http://bestfriendscocoa.com ---------

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

In article ,
Uri Guttman wrote:
> that is very wrong. see my other post about this. perl was never
> originally an acronym and you can ask larry. hmm, maybe i should the
> next time i have dinner with him.

As long as the man page continues to call it "Practical Extraction and
Report Language", and "Programming Perl" says it is the "Practical
Extraction and Report Language", it *is* going to be called PERL now and
then, regardless of whether that is an acronym or a backronym.

--
--Tim Smith

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

In article ,
Uri Guttman wrote:
> >>>>> perl [...] is poorly typed
> >>>>
> >>>> By you? (Did you mean Perl by the way?)
....
> VR> Yes, when _programming_, not with geenral petty conversations, such
> VR> responses as "it's Perl not perl or PERL" serve NO PURPOSE. Arguably
> VR> neither does this leg of the thread, but that because people like you
> VR> refuse to pull out your heads for some fresh air.
>
> oh please remove your own cranium from your rectum first. you don't seem
> to be a regular here and misspelling perl is a common thing among
> posters who also don't post according to this group's guidelines. it is
> even covered in an FAQ why perl is not an acronym. yes, colloquially
> perl and other langs can be in whatever case but seeing it wrong when it
> can be corrected is not the crime you make it out to be. so get yourself
> off this flame war now and shut up about it until you are someone who
> regularly answers questions here. the rule is no bitching about how
> others help here until you help regularly and well.

Wait a second...let me see if I have this straight:

Poster #1 spells Perl "perl".

Poster #2 is a jerk about that.

Poster #3 calls poster #2 a jerk, and defends "perl".

You take exception to that, coming out strongly against those who
spell it "perl", while spelling it that way every time you
use it in your condemnation of people who spell it "perl"!?

--
--Tim Smith

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 21:17:52 -0700, Gordon Etly wrote:

[...]

> As someone else pointed out, in many other groups centered around a
> particular programming language, no one pays this kind of attention of
> people like your self seem to.

Its a marker of if your inside the group of perl culture or out of
it. Its a short cut to find out if you have read and understood the
FAQ.

[...]

> If someone is a good programmer with the Perl language, does
> it really make a difference how they spell it as long as they know what
> they are doing?

Because reading the FAQ, paying attention to detail and understanding
what people tell them are aspects of knowing how to program in Perl.
You will find that people don't care about the spelling of random
words, its only when people start talking about Perl specific words
does it start to mattor.

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

Tim Smith wrote:
> Wait a second...let me see if I have this straight:
>
> Poster #1 spells Perl "perl".
>
> Poster #2 is a jerk about that.
>
> Poster #3 calls poster #2 a jerk, and defends "perl".
>
> You take exception to that, coming out strongly against those who
> spell it "perl", while spelling it that way every time you
> use it in your condemnation of people who spell it "perl"!?

Thank you, this is the most valuable posting in this thread.

People are spinning around with their thoughts, losing "the point"
because of their emotional outbreaks.

Ok, Uri is right in saying that the FAQ explains it well.
But the FAQ also states that you can follow the guideline ... or not.

Uri is writing "perl actually has stronger typing than many langs" and
(in a followup) "perl and other langs".

He is eager to participate in the flame war, shooting against
"non-regulars".

But I miss a statement saying like: "Well, I have mis-typed Perl, but
nonetheless, I defend a correct typing, because it makes sense and is
part of our Perl culture!"

--jk

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 03:32:19 +0000, John Bokma wrote:

> A perl programmer is not the same as a Perl programmer. A perl hacker is
> not the same as a Perl hacker.

This presents us with a serious problem. When we speak, we cannot
distinguish between capital letters and small letters. So there is a
danger of confusion, if we should tell people "I'm a Perl programmer",
they may make a mistake and think we are "perl programmers". Then all
hell will break loose. So if we say this rather than write it down, we
should be sure to always say "I'm a Perl with a capital P programmer" or
"I'm a perl with a small p hacker". Or, to reduce unnecessary wordiness,
we can carry a card with us when we speak, and whenever we say the word
"Perl" or "perl" in public, we can produce the card and point to the
correct version of the letter with our forefinger.

> And as I already wrote, PERL misleads people, they see PERL, and they
> think it's an acronym.

And then they invest all their life savings into PERL and loose it all,
or something?

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

"Gordon Etly" wrote in
news:65r17iF2h5fbhU1@mid.individual.net:

> John Bokma wrote:
....
>>
>> Moreover, Perl is the programming language, and perl is the
>> executable, hence there is a good reason to be case sensitive.
>> Hence, perl [...] is poorly typed seems to refer to the
>> executable, hence Dr. Ruud's question.
>
> As someone else pointed out, in many other groups centered around
> a particular programming language, no one pays this kind of
> attention of people like your self seem to.

Have you tried posting a question about a non-existence language
called C/C++ in comp.lang.c?

Think of the distinction between Perl and perl a clue-meter. We
already know the contributions Uri has made to this group and to my
work with his modules.

When an unknown poster shows his/her ignorance, someone tries to
give that person a hand by providing a correction. The response to
the correction helps us evaluate if it would ever be worth spending
our time answering questions by this person.

Sinan

--
A. Sinan Unur <1usa@llenroc.ude.invalid>
(remove .invalid and reverse each component for email address)

comp.lang.perl.misc guidelines on the WWW:
http://www.rehabitation.com/clpmisc/

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

"David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" wrote in
news:slrnfvh94l.b50.dformosa@localhost.localdomain:

> You will find that people don't care about the spelling of
> random words, its only when people start talking about
> Perl specific words does it start to mattor.

;-)

--
A. Sinan Unur <1usa@llenroc.ude.invalid>
(remove .invalid and reverse each component for email address)

comp.lang.perl.misc guidelines on the WWW:
http://www.rehabitation.com/clpmisc/

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

Uri Guttman wrote:
> because it is the newer users who need to learn the difference. saying
> 'perl' or 'PERL' has a bug are very different. being technically
> accurate is a critical skill to a coder so using the correct name for
> the language vs the compiler vs a backronym is important. if a perl
> hacker wannabe can't get that right, they need to be told about it.

Hi, I recognize your claim on this topic, but I do not back your behavior.

You cannot criticize the [pP]erl mis-typing of newbies and practice this
mis-typing yourself in the same news thread (and use such an emotional
wording).

As I have posted in a reply to Tim Smith's posting:
....
> Ok, Uri is right in saying that the FAQ explains it well.
> But the FAQ also states that you can follow the guideline ... or not.
>
> Uri is writing "perl actually has stronger typing than many langs" and (in a followup) "perl and other langs".
>
> He is eager to participate in the flame war, shooting against "non-regulars".
>
> But I miss a statement saying like: "Well, I have mis-typed Perl, but nonetheless, I defend a correct typing, because it makes sense and is part of our Perl culture!"

--jk

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 21:17:52 -0700, Gordon Etly
> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > As someone else pointed out, in many other groups centered around a
> > particular programming language, no one pays this kind of attention
> > of people like your self seem to.
>
> Its a marker of if your inside the group of perl culture or out of
> it. Its a short cut to find out if you have read and understood the
> FAQ.

But it's a rather indicator. What is someone wants to be a little
different, even after having read the FAQ? What if they typed 'man perl'
or 'perldoc perl' early on in their Perl life and just went with the
first few lines:

$ perldoc perl | head -n 10
PERL(1) User Contributed Perl Documentation
PERL(1)
^^^^


NAME
perl - Practical Extraction and Report Language
^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This alone should make seeing "PERL" not surprising, weather one has
read the FAQ or not. If various regulars can be different in their own
way, it's rather hypocritical to bare down on not-so-regular people (or
are they... many people might actually be //regular readers//) in this
manner.


> [...]
>
> > If someone is a good programmer with the Perl language, does
> > it really make a difference how they spell it as long as they know
> > what they are doing?
>
> Because reading the FAQ, paying attention to detail and understanding
> what people tell them are aspects of knowing how to program in Perl.

No, you can judge someone purely on grounds like that. If someone wants
to write "PERL", whether based on the man/perldoc page for "perl", that
should be their choice. It is unfair to assume they are 'unworthy'
simply because they want to me a little different. Again, some well
known members of this group do things differently as well (Abigail's
non-standard quoting, Uri's refusal to properly use the shift key and
such) yet it's a crime for others to be different in more or less the
same way?

> You will find that people don't care about the spelling of random
> words, its only when people start talking about Perl specific words
> does it start to mattor.

Yes, but "PERL" and "Practical Extraction and Report Language" come fro
mthe man/perldoc page for "perl", how can one get more official then
something's own man page? Are you saying the FAQ for this group, a user
contributed document, as valvuable as it may be, carries more weight
then Perl's own man page?

--
G.Etly

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

On 2008-04-06, V.Ronans wrote:
> xhoster@gmail.com wrote:
>> "V.Ronans" wrote:
>>> Dr.Ruud wrote:
>>>> jm schreef:
>>>>
>>>>> perl [...] is poorly typed
>>>>
>>>> By you? (Did you mean Perl by the way?)
>>>
>>> Honestly, you know full well he was talking about the programming
>>> language that pertains to this here news group, so feign ignorance? I
>>> mean why is this even such an issue? Other places where people talk
>>> about programming languages don't seem to care if it's all caps,
>>> first only capitalized, or all lowercase, or what have you. I've
>>> seen Java, java, and JAVA, cpp, C++, c++, c, C, python, PYTHON,
>>> cobol, Cobol, COBOL, and the list goes on.
>>>
>>> So why make such a stink about something so damn trivial?
>>
>> Programming requires attention to detail. Well, good programming
>> does, anyway.
>
> Yes, when _programming_, not with geenral petty conversations, such
> responses as "it's Perl not perl or PERL" serve NO PURPOSE. Arguably
> neither does this leg of the thread, but that because people like you
> refuse to pull out your heads for some fresh air.
>
In my experience, people who cannot speak precisely cannot program precisely.
They pick up bad habits.

--
Christopher Mattern

NOTICE
Thank you for noticing this new notice
Your noticing it has been noted
And will be reported to the authorities

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

A. Sinan Unur wrote:
> "Gordon Etly" wrote in
> news:65r17iF2h5fbhU1@mid.individual.net:
>
>> John Bokma wrote:
> ...
>>>
>>> Moreover, Perl is the programming language, and perl is the
>>> executable, hence there is a good reason to be case sensitive.
>>> Hence, perl [...] is poorly typed seems to refer to the
>>> executable, hence Dr. Ruud's question.
>>
>> As someone else pointed out, in many other groups centered around
>> a particular programming language, no one pays this kind of
>> attention of people like your self seem to.
>
> Have you tried posting a question about a non-existence language
> called C/C++ in comp.lang.c?

Yes I have. They are related languages. C++ is based on C. Most people
seem to understand that, while also understanding what sets them apart.

> Think of the distinction between Perl and perl a clue-meter.

But that is just wrong. If the man/perldoc page for "perl" reads like,


$ perldoc perl | head -n 10
PERL(1) User Contributed Perl Documentation PERL(1)
^^^^

NAME
perl - Practical Extraction and Report Language
^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

then would not someone using it as such an acronym be in fact //more//
clue-ful [sic], having read the man/perdoc pages? I mean can the
FAQ/guidelines, a user created contribution, as valuable as it may be,
really carry more weight then Perl's own documentation?

> We already know the contributions Uri has made to this group and to my
> work with his modules.

That doesn't excuse his blatant hypocrisy; he himself uses "perl" when
telling people NOT to use it. Being a contributor doesn't mean one does
not have to follow what they preach.

> When an unknown poster shows his/her ignorance, someone tries to
> give that person a hand by providing a correction. The response to
> the correction helps us evaluate if it would ever be worth spending
> our time answering questions by this person.

Perhaps, but the point here is the correction itself is not necessarly
correct. Not if Perl's own man pages and perdoc mena anything.

--
G.Etly

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

Gordon Etly wrote:
> David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) wrote:
>> On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 21:17:52 -0700, Gordon Etly
>> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> As someone else pointed out, in many other groups centered around a
>>> particular programming language, no one pays this kind of attention
>>> of people like your self seem to.
>>
>> Its a marker of if your inside the group of perl culture or out of
>> it. Its a short cut to find out if you have read and understood the
>> FAQ.
>
> But it's a rather indicator. What is someone wants to be a little

Should be: "But it's a rather poor indicator. What if someone"

> different, even after having read the FAQ? What if they typed 'man
> perl' or 'perldoc perl' early on in their Perl life and just went
> with the first few lines:
>
> $ perldoc perl | head -n 10
> PERL(1) User Contributed Perl Documentation
> PERL(1)
> ^^^^
>
>
> NAME
> perl - Practical Extraction and Report Language
> ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> This alone should make seeing "PERL" not surprising, weather one has
> read the FAQ or not. If various regulars can be different in their own
> way, it's rather hypocritical to bare down on not-so-regular people
> (or are they... many people might actually be //regular readers//) in
> this manner.
>
>
>> [...]
>>
>>> If someone is a good programmer with the Perl language, does
>>> it really make a difference how they spell it as long as they know
>>> what they are doing?
>>
>> Because reading the FAQ, paying attention to detail and understanding
>> what people tell them are aspects of knowing how to program in Perl.
>
> No, you can judge someone purely on grounds like that. If someone
> wants to write "PERL", whether based on the man/perldoc page for
> "perl", that should be their choice. It is unfair to assume they are
> 'unworthy' simply because they want to me a little different. Again,
> some well known members of this group do things differently as well
> (Abigail's non-standard quoting, Uri's refusal to properly use the
> shift key and such) yet it's a crime for others to be different in
> more or less the same way?
>
>> You will find that people don't care about the spelling of random
>> words, its only when people start talking about Perl specific words
>> does it start to mattor.
>
> Yes, but "PERL" and "Practical Extraction and Report Language" come
> fro mthe man/perldoc page for "perl", how can one get more official
> then something's own man page? Are you saying the FAQ for this group,
> a user contributed document, as valvuable as it may be, carries more
> weight then Perl's own man page?

--
G.Etly

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

Chris Mattern wrote:
> On 2008-04-06, V.Ronans wrote:
>> xhoster@gmail.com wrote:
>>> "V.Ronans" wrote:
>>>> Dr.Ruud wrote:
>>>>> jm schreef:
>>>>>
>>>>>> perl [...] is poorly typed
>>>>>
>>>>> By you? (Did you mean Perl by the way?)
>>>>
>>>> Honestly, you know full well he was talking about the programming
>>>> language that pertains to this here news group, so feign
>>>> ignorance? I mean why is this even such an issue? Other places
>>>> where people talk about programming languages don't seem to care
>>>> if it's all caps, first only capitalized, or all lowercase, or
>>>> what have you. I've seen Java, java, and JAVA, cpp, C++, c++, c,
>>>> C, python, PYTHON, cobol, Cobol, COBOL, and the list goes on.
>>>>
>>>> So why make such a stink about something so damn trivial?
>>>
>>> Programming requires attention to detail. Well, good programming
>>> does, anyway.
>>
>> Yes, when _programming_, not with geenral petty conversations, such
>> responses as "it's Perl not perl or PERL" serve NO PURPOSE. Arguably
>> neither does this leg of the thread, but that because people like you
>> refuse to pull out your heads for some fresh air.
>>
> In my experience, people who cannot speak precisely cannot program
> precisely. They pick up bad habits.

And just how does one distinguish between "perl", "Perl", and "PERL"
when //speaking// ?

Go type 'perldoc perl' and you will see that any of those forms is
perfectly valid. Are you saying one cannot be considered "precise" by
going according to Perl's own documentation?!? Does this group's FAQ, as
valuable as it may be, hold more weight then Perl's own docs/man-page?

--
G.Etly

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------000003050207080203000107
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Uri Guttman wrote:
> _t_hat is very wrong. _s_ee my other post about this. _p_erl was never
> originally an acronym and you can ask _l_arry. _h_mm, maybe _i_ should
> the next time _i_ have dinner with him.
Hmmm... You either have no regard for proper capitalization of the
English language, lack a shift key or are just plain lazy. The above
underlined letters tell you all you need to know...
--
Andrew DeFaria
Question: Why do people always seem to find things in the last place
that they look? Answer: Because most people stop looking after they find
it!

--------------000003050207080203000107
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit






Uri Guttman wrote:

cite="mid:x7abk7lft6.fsf@mail.sysarch.com" type="cite">that is
very wrong. see my other post about this. perl was
never originally an acronym and you can ask larry. hmm,
maybe i should the next time i have dinner with him.

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------020204000709030801040709
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Uri Guttman wrote:
>>>>>> "VR" == V Ronans writes:
>
> VR> Uri Guttman wrote:
>
> VR> I'm a regular reader.
>
> not a regular contributor. that downgrades your comments here. by a lot.
You did not request that he be a regular contributor - just a regular.
Shall we now condemn him for *your *ambiguity?
> VR> 2) I'm not sure you should be preaching about using proper grammar
> when
> VR> you don't even bother to capitalize the first letter of your
> sentences.
>
> WELL I CAN HIT THE SHIFT KEY IF YOU WANT!!!
Ah, moron, did you not understand his point? It wasn't really that
difficult to comprehend. Stop being obtuse!
> as for my casing, that is your problem. i choose to case my postings
> this way. my documentation, POD, writing, teaching, slides are all
> cased as others want them.
So let me get this straight... You *choose* to be a pompous little prick
and consciously want to lowercase everything even though you know it's
wrong to what? Attract more nerdy friends?!? Great job there ace!
--
Andrew DeFaria
Old dog still learning - please don't shoot yet

--------------020204000709030801040709
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit






Uri Guttman wrote:

cite="mid:x7iqyvlg2w.fsf@mail.sysarch.com" type="cite">

"VR"
== V Ronans writes:

VR> Uri Guttman wrote:



VR> I'm a regular reader.



not a regular contributor. that downgrades your comments here. by a lot.

cite="mid:x7iqyvlg2w.fsf@mail.sysarch.com" type="cite"> VR> 2) I'm
not sure you should be preaching about using proper grammar when

VR> you don't even bother to capitalize the first letter of your
sentences.



WELL I CAN HIT THE SHIFT KEY IF YOU WANT!!!

cite="mid:x7iqyvlg2w.fsf@mail.sysarch.com" type="cite">as for my
casing, that is your problem. i choose to case my postings this way. my
documentation, POD, writing, teaching, slides are all cased as others
want them.

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------060208010202030109070208
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Uri Guttman wrote:
> because it is the newer users who need to learn the difference. saying
> 'perl' or 'PERL' has a bug are very different. being technically
> accurate is a critical skill to a coder so using the correct name for
> the language vs the compiler vs a backronym is important. if a perl
> hacker wannabe can't get that right, they need to be told about it. i
> have the same issue when i see jobs for 'PERL'. that is important to
> me as i work in the job placement field and would never use that form.
You work in the "job placement field"?!? What are you a recruiter?

Total bull! You have people coming in here asking questions about how
perl "throws" a message to the "monitor"! Being technically accurate
will never, I repeat - NEVER be something you'll see a beginner be
proficient at! *Saying* "perl" or "PERL" means nothing - they *sound*
the same. They are typed differently. And quite frankly the case is
totally unimportant compared to teaching noobies the difference between
"throwing" a message on a "monitor" and actually printing to stdout.

You're argument is vacuous and your stance is nothing more than
argumentative.
--
Andrew DeFaria
Backups? Backups? We don't need no stinking backups!

--------------060208010202030109070208
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit






Uri Guttman wrote:

cite="mid:x7ej9jlfx0.fsf@mail.sysarch.com" type="cite">because it is
the newer users who need to learn the difference. saying 'perl' or
'PERL' has a bug are very different. being technically accurate is a
critical skill to a coder so using the correct name for the language vs
the compiler vs a backronym is important. if a perl hacker wannabe
can't get that right, they need to be told about it. i have the same
issue when i see jobs for 'PERL'. that is important to me as i work in
the job placement field and would never use that form.

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------050909000004030305080007
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Gordon Etly wrote:
>> But it's a rather indicator. What is someone wants to be a little
> Should be: "But it's a rather poor indicator. What if someone"
>> This alone should make seeing "PERL" not surprising, weather one has
>> read the FAQ or not.
Since we're in correcting mode... This should be 'This alone should make
seeing "PERL" not surprising, _whether_ one has read the FAQ or not.' ;-)
--
Andrew DeFaria
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? then he is malevolent. Is he both able and
willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then
why call him God?

--------------050909000004030305080007
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit






Gordon Etly wrote:

cite="mid:65sd0dF2fe733U1@mid.individual.net" type="cite">

But it's a
rather indicator. What is someone wants to be a little

Should be: "But it's a rather poor indicator. What if someone"

This alone
should make seeing "PERL" not surprising, weather one has read the FAQ
or not.

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

"Gordon Etly" wrote:

> John Bokma wrote:
>> "V.Ronans" wrote:
>>
>>> Dr.Ruud wrote:
>>>> jm schreef:
>>>>
>>>>> perl [...] is poorly typed
>>>>
>>>> By you? (Did you mean Perl by the way?)
>>>
>>> Honestly, you know full well he was talking about the programming
>>> language that pertains to this here news group, so feign ignorance?
>>> I mean why is this even such an issue? Other places where people
>>> talk about programming languages don't seem to care if it's all
>>> caps,
>>
>> There are already plenty of people who think PERL is an acronym (it's
>> not), so "we" like to avoid PERL.
>>
>> Moreover, Perl is the programming language, and perl is the
>> executable, hence there is a good reason to be case sensitive. Hence,
>> perl [...] is poorly typed seems to refer to the executable, hence
>> Dr. Ruud's question.
>
> As someone else pointed out, in many other groups centered around a
> particular programming language, no one pays this kind of attention of
> people like your self seem to.

I am sure that in a Java related group people will post remarks if
someone mixes up javac with java (executables).

Also, I am sure that in C related groups people start to ask questions
if you constantly talk about x is an integer and that you have problems
with it.

> Second, why is it people like yourself
> can never give a straight answer as to why it is of such high
> importance?

Because programming is about being very specific and exact. Details do
matter. Calling a warning and error is another classic one (or vice
versa), or just stating that "my PERL program crashed, please help".

> If someone is a good programmer with the Perl language, does
> it really make a difference how they spell it as long as they know
> what they are doing?

IMO a good Perl programmer knows the difference between Perl and perl,
and knows when to use which one.

> I mean you have people like Abigail who use their own
> quote characters, Uri who can't use a bloody shift key, etc,

Yes, and me, who has English as a second language. As long as all those
people don't write ambiguous statements related with the problem/answer,
I don't have a problem with it.

> and you're
> worried about how some random bloke cases the word/term Perl?

Yes. Look at the subject: perl should be improved. I read that as: the
perl executable should be improved. I have very little to say on that
subject (I am not a perl programmer/hacker)

However, if the subject is: Perl should be improved, I might like to
read it, because, as a Perl programmer, I have my own ideas.

--
John

http://johnbokma.com/perl/

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

Johann Kappacher wrote:

>> Ok, Uri is right in saying that the FAQ explains it well.
>> But the FAQ also states that you can follow the guideline ... or not.
>>
>> Uri is writing "perl actually has stronger typing than many langs"
>> and (in a followup) "perl and other langs".


Uri avoids the shift key for one reason or another. Regs here don't
mistake Uri for a newbie, and hence read over this.

The problem with people who use PERL, or perl if they mean Perl, and vice
versa, often are newbies. They increase their change of being taken
serious by getting it right. Or they might be able to get away with it, if
other regs recognize them as someone who knows their Perl :-D.

--
John

http://johnbokma.com/perl/

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

Andrew DeFaria wrote:

> Attachment decoded: text-html-3

Oops, you just lost any credebility :-D

--
John

http://johnbokma.com/perl/

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

"Gordon Etly" wrote:

> John Bokma wrote:
>> "V.Ronans" wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Yes, when _programming_, not with geenral petty conversations, such
>>> responses as "it's Perl not perl or PERL" serve NO PURPOSE.
>>
>> Yes they do:
>>
>> A perl programmer is not the same as a Perl programmer.
>> A perl hacker is not the same as a Perl hacker.
>
> There is no real difference.

Yes there is. I can be hired as a Perl programmer, but if you are
looking for a perl programmer, I have to turn your project down.

> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=PERL
>
> The spelling "Perl" is preferred over the older "PERL" (even though
> some explain the language's name as originating in the acronym for
> "Practical Extraction and Report Language"). The program that
> interprets/compiles Perl code is called "perl", typically
> "/usr/local/bin/perl" or "/usr/bin/perl".

Who do you trust more? People who make a living working with Perl on a
daily basis, who have contributed to the language in one way or another,
or some dictionary entry?

>> I also use it as a quick way to see if someone knows what he/she is
>> talking about. Someone who claims to be a PERL programmer tells me
>> that I probably never want to maintain his/her code.
>
> That's a very poor measuring stick.

Based on my experience of quite some years: *anyone* I have seen
constantly refering to Perl as PERL had either never programmed a single
line in Perl, or was an absolute newbie.

> Seems also hypocritical, considering
> some of the more well known people in this group are known for doing
> thing differently (Abigail for her interesting alternate forms of
> quoting in replies,

Yes, used to annoy me as well. But the alternate quoting has nothing to
do with Perl or perl (heh, or a lot ;-) ), and the value of the content
of *his* [1] posts severely outweights the quoting.

> Uri for his inability to use the shift key, and so
> forth),

Yeah, those people who have English as their second lenguage :-D.

> to judge some random bloke who may also choose to be different.

If his piece was well written, nobody would have made a point of his
misspelling of Perl.

--
John

http://johnbokma.com/perl/

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------010607060206020605080709
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

John Bokma wrote:
> Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>
>> Attachment decoded: text-html-3
> Oops, you just lost any credebility :-D
What a silly argument!

And you never had any credebility (sic) to start with!

ROTFLMAO, you guys bitch about "perl" vs. "Perl" saying that one must
pay attention to detail, yet you fail to recognize the little detail of
properly capitalizing sentences and proper names, etc. and then are
paying so much attention to detail that you can't even spell credibility
correctly! I mean was it not you John who just got finished saying:
"Because programming is about being very specific and exact. Details do
matter."???

And what's worse, you probably believe that somehow gives you
credibility!!!!
--
Andrew DeFaria
11th commandment - Covet not thy neighbor's Pentium.

--------------010607060206020605080709
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit







John Bokma wrote:

cite="mid:Xns9A7883B083FCFcastleamber@130.133.1.4" type="cite">Andrew
DeFaria wrote:

Attachment
decoded: text-html-3

Oops, you just lost any credebility :-D

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

Andrew DeFaria wrote:

You might want to fix TB to post only in plain text instead of attaching a
HTML version as well. (Moreover, you might want to use a fixed font while
viewing Usenet postings (unless you already do), it makes some of the code
snippets a bit easier on the eye and doesn't break ASCII art).

--
John

http://johnbokma.com/perl/

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------070109070001020807060907
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

John Bokma wrote:
> Because programming is about being very specific and exact. Details do
> matter.
Exactly! Because otherwise you'll lose credebility! I know. John said
so! ;-)
>> I mean you have people like Abigail who use their own quote
>> characters, Uri who can't use a bloody shift key, etc,
> Yes, and me, who has English as a second language.
Bogus excuse. You've been told what is correct and you (well maybe not
you John but Abigail and Uri for sure) don't care and continue to do the
wrong thing. A word to the wise is sufficient as they say. Either you
are not wise or you purposely choose not to conform. If so then you are
in no position to lecture somebody else regarding this.
> As long as all those people don't write ambiguous statements related
> with the problem/answer, I don't have a problem with it.
Yes but others do have a problem with it.
> Yes. Look at the subject: perl should be improved. I read that as: the
> perl executable should be improved. I have very little to say on that
> subject (I am not a perl programmer/hacker)
You have been told that that's the incorrect interpretation. Now what
are you gonna do? Stubbornly insist that it is? And how is that productive?
--
Andrew DeFaria
As she lay there dozing next to me, one voice inside my head kept
saying, "Relax... you are not the first doctor to sleep with one of his
patients," but another kept reminding me, "Howard, you are a
veterinarian." - Roger Matthews

--------------070109070001020807060907
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit







John Bokma wrote:

cite="mid:Xns9A7882C082C4Fcastleamber@130.133.1.4" type="cite">Because
programming is about being very specific and exact. Details do matter.

cite="mid:Xns9A7882C082C4Fcastleamber@130.133.1.4" type="cite">

I mean you
have people like Abigail who use their own quote characters, Uri who
can't use a bloody shift key, etc,

Yes, and me, who has English as a second language.

cite="mid:Xns9A7882C082C4Fcastleamber@130.133.1.4" type="cite"> As
long as all those people don't write ambiguous statements related with
the problem/answer, I don't have a problem with it.

cite="mid:Xns9A7882C082C4Fcastleamber@130.133.1.4" type="cite">Yes.
Look at the subject: perl should be improved. I read that as: the perl
executable should be improved. I have very little to say on that
subject (I am not a perl programmer/hacker)

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------060707050204040300010901
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

John Bokma wrote:
> Johann Kappacher wrote:
>>> Ok, Uri is right in saying that the FAQ explains it well.
>>> But the FAQ also states that you can follow the guideline ... or not.
>>>
>>> Uri is writing "perl actually has stronger typing than many langs"
>>> and (in a followup) "perl and other langs".
> Uri avoids the shift key for one reason or another. Regs here don't
> mistake Uri for a newbie, and hence read over this.
This is nothing more than simply an excuse for incorrect behavior. Can
we as easily say that Joe Smith has the CAPS LOCK on for one reason or
another but we're all OK with that? I think not. Uri's keyboard usage is
as bad and as wrong as somebody with CAPS LOCK on.
> The problem with people who use PERL, or perl if they mean Perl, and
> vice versa, often are newbies.
No, newbies have way more to concern them than your arcane and obtuse
usage of capitalization to mean different things in your mind.
> They increase their change of being taken serious by getting it right.
Really? What "change" is that? Did you mean "chance"? Gotta pay
attention to those details as John Bokm... Wait! You *are* John Bokma!
Heavens to murgatroid! How did you fuck up?

Message here is that people who live in glass houses should not throw
stones.
--
Andrew DeFaria
I was born by Cesarean section, but you really can't tell...except that
when I leave my house, I always go out the window...

--------------060707050204040300010901
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit







John Bokma wrote:

cite="mid:Xns9A788368B7FD6castleamber@130.133.1.4" type="cite">Johann
Kappacher wrote:

Ok, Uri is
right in saying that the FAQ explains it well.

But the FAQ also states that you can follow the guideline ... or not.



Uri is writing "perl actually has stronger typing than many langs"

and (in a followup) "perl and other langs".

Uri avoids the shift key for one reason or another. Regs here
don't mistake Uri for a newbie, and hence read over this.

cite="mid:Xns9A788368B7FD6castleamber@130.133.1.4" type="cite">The
problem with people who use PERL, or perl if they mean Perl, and vice 
versa, often are newbies.

cite="mid:Xns9A788368B7FD6castleamber@130.133.1.4" type="cite"> They
increase their change of being taken serious by getting it right.

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------060401090101090205080800
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

John Bokma wrote:
> Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>
> You might want to fix TB to post only in plain text instead of
> attaching a HTML version as well.
Thanks but no thanks. There is nothing to "fix". This is by design.
> (Moreover, you might want to use a fixed font while viewing Usenet
> postings (unless you already do), it makes some of the code snippets a
> bit easier on the eye and doesn't break ASCII art).
I've given up even a casual interest in ASCII art I'd say back in the
70's son...
--
Andrew DeFaria
You?re basically killing each other to see who?s got the better
imaginary friend.

--------------060401090101090205080800
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit







John Bokma wrote:

cite="mid:Xns9A7886840B84castleamber@130.133.1.4" type="cite">Andrew
DeFaria wrote:



You might want to fix TB to post only in plain text instead of
attaching a HTML version as well.

cite="mid:Xns9A7886840B84castleamber@130.133.1.4" type="cite">(Moreover,
you might want to use a fixed font while viewing Usenet postings
(unless you already do), it makes some of the code snippets a bit
easier on the eye and doesn't break ASCII art).

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------040905010004010403040904
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

John Bokma wrote:
>>> A perl programmer is not the same as a Perl programmer.
>>> A perl hacker is not the same as a Perl hacker.
>> There is no real difference.
> Yes there is. I can be hired as a Perl programmer, but if you are
> looking for a perl programmer, I have to turn your project down.
Your loss then for being a pinhead...
> Who do you trust more? People who make a living working with Perl on a
> daily basis, who have contributed to the language in one way or
> another, or some dictionary entry?
As has been pointed out, PERL appears in the perl man page. Who wrote
that besides people who make a living working with Perl?
>> Uri for his inability to use the shift key, and so forth),
> Yeah, those people who have English as their second lenguage :-D.
....would do well to pay attention to native English speakers to learn
and abide by the rules or the language instead of pompously attempting
to constantly use this crutch. You've been told what is correct yet
refuse to comply. You have no right to complain then.
> If his piece was well written, nobody would have made a point of his
> misspelling of Perl.
And yet you wish to maintain the right to incorrectly use English and
not be judged by it?
--
Andrew DeFaria
Going to church does not make you a Christian any more than standing in
a garage makes you a car.

--------------040905010004010403040904
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit







John Bokma wrote:

cite="mid:Xns9A7885F1ECFD3castleamber@130.133.1.4" type="cite">

A perl
programmer is not the same as a Perl programmer.

A perl hacker is not the same as a Perl hacker.

There is no real difference.

Yes there is. I can be hired as a Perl programmer, but if you
are looking for a perl programmer, I have to turn your project down.

cite="mid:Xns9A7885F1ECFD3castleamber@130.133.1.4" type="cite">Who do
you trust more? People who make a living working with Perl on a daily
basis, who have contributed to the language in one way or another, or
some dictionary entry?

cite="mid:Xns9A7885F1ECFD3castleamber@130.133.1.4" type="cite">

Uri for his
inability to use the shift key, and so forth),

Yeah, those people who have English as their second lenguage :-D.

cite="mid:Xns9A7885F1ECFD3castleamber@130.133.1.4" type="cite">If his
piece was well written, nobody would have made a point of his
misspelling of Perl.

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

Ben Bullock wrote:

> On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 03:32:19 +0000, John Bokma wrote:
>
>> A perl programmer is not the same as a Perl programmer. A perl hacker
>> is not the same as a Perl hacker.
>
> This presents us with a serious problem. When we speak,

this is Usenet. If I read your posting aloud here on the street, most
people are not able to understand it. Should we now start to post in
Spanish?

--
John

http://johnbokma.com/perl/

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

Andrew DeFaria wrote:

> John Bokma wrote:
>> Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>>
>> You might want to fix TB to post only in plain text instead of
>> attaching a HTML version as well.

> Thanks but no thanks. There is nothing to "fix". This is by design.

You can turn it off in TB. If you keep posting with HTML attachements,
which have no place on Usenet, you will notice that soon few people if at
all will reply to your posts.

[..]

> I've given up even a casual interest in ASCII art I'd say back in the
> 70's son...

It shows.

Anyway, ASCII art is now and then used in technical groups to illustrate
something.

--
John

http://johnbokma.com/perl/

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

Andrew DeFaria wrote:

> And you never had any credebility (sic) to start with!
^^^
[sic]

;-)

--
John

http://johnbokma.com/perl/

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

Gordon Etly wrote:
> A. Sinan Unur wrote:
>> "Gordon Etly" wrote in
>> news:65r17iF2h5fbhU1@mid.individual.net:
>>
>>> John Bokma wrote:
>> ...
>>>> Moreover, Perl is the programming language, and perl is the
>>>> executable, hence there is a good reason to be case sensitive.
>>>> Hence, perl [...] is poorly typed seems to refer to the
>>>> executable, hence Dr. Ruud's question.
>>> As someone else pointed out, in many other groups centered around
>>> a particular programming language, no one pays this kind of
>>> attention of people like your self seem to.
>> Have you tried posting a question about a non-existence language
>> called C/C++ in comp.lang.c?
>
> Yes I have. They are related languages. C++ is based on C. Most people
> seem to understand that, while also understanding what sets them apart.
>
>> Think of the distinction between Perl and perl a clue-meter.
>
> But that is just wrong. If the man/perldoc page for "perl" reads like,
>
>
> $ perldoc perl | head -n 10
> PERL(1) User Contributed Perl Documentation PERL(1)
> ^^^^

Are you saying that the roff(7) formatting of a header implies something?



John
--
Perl isn't a toolbox, but a small machine shop where you
can special-order certain sorts of tools at low cost and
in short order. -- Larry Wall

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------070207010703090503030400
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

John Bokma wrote:
> Ben Bullock wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 03:32:19 +0000, John Bokma wrote:
>>
>>> A perl programmer is not the same as a Perl programmer. A perl
>>> hacker is not the same as a Perl hacker.
>> This presents us with a serious problem. When we speak,
> this is Usenet. If I read your posting aloud here on the street, most
> people are not able to understand it. Should we now start to post in
> Spanish?
Did you have a point here? Or are you just continuing your streak of
being argumentative merely for arguments sake?
--
Andrew DeFaria
If a word is misspelled in the dictionary, how would we ever know?

--------------070207010703090503030400
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit







John Bokma wrote:

cite="mid:Xns9A788943F5602castleamber@130.133.1.4" type="cite">Ben
Bullock wrote:

On Sun, 06 Apr
2008 03:32:19 +0000, John Bokma wrote:

A perl
programmer is not the same as a Perl programmer. A perl hacker is not
the same as a Perl hacker.

This presents us with a serious problem. When we speak,

this is Usenet. If I read your posting aloud here on the street,
most people are not able to understand it. Should we now start to post
in  Spanish?

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------040600010503050101020008
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

John Bokma wrote:
> Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>> John Bokma wrote:
>>> Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>>>
>>> You might want to fix TB to post only in plain text instead of
>>> attaching a HTML version as well.
>
>> Thanks but no thanks. There is nothing to "fix". This is by design.
> You can turn it off in TB.
What portion of "by design" are you having difficulty understanding?
Perhaps I could help you out!
> If you keep posting with HTML attachements, which have no place on
> Usenet, you will notice that soon few people if at all will reply to
> your posts.
I've been doing so for years son and let me tell you - this has not been
the case. Only pinheads who make arbitrary distinctions between a "Word"
and a "word" tend to complain and eventually submit (because really, you
have no other choice). So my design is having exactly the effect I had
hoped for.
> [..]
>
>> I've given up even a casual interest in ASCII art I'd say back in the
>> 70's son...
> It shows.
Indeed! It shows that I have a lot more taste than to admire ASCII
"art". That's for geeks who have never quite graduated from DOS and
who's only instrument of expression appears to be a single colored
crayon. Did your mommy let you out to play today there John?
> Anyway, ASCII art is now and then used in technical groups to
> illustrate something.
Yes, for those less creative people... I understand...
--
Andrew DeFaria
When there's a will, I want to be in it.

--------------040600010503050101020008
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit







John Bokma wrote:

cite="mid:Xns9A788E71087F6castleamber@130.133.1.4" type="cite">Andrew
DeFaria wrote:

John Bokma
wrote:

Andrew
DeFaria wrote:



You might want to fix TB to post only in plain text instead of

attaching a HTML version as well.

Thanks but no
thanks. There is nothing to "fix". This is by design.

You can turn it off in TB.

cite="mid:Xns9A788E71087F6castleamber@130.133.1.4" type="cite"> If you
keep posting with HTML attachements, which have no place on Usenet, you
will notice that soon few people if at all will reply to your posts.

cite="mid:Xns9A788E71087F6castleamber@130.133.1.4" type="cite">[..]

I've given up
even a casual interest in ASCII art I'd say back in the 70's son...

It shows.

cite="mid:Xns9A788E71087F6castleamber@130.133.1.4" type="cite">Anyway,
ASCII art is now and then used in technical groups to illustrate
something.

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------040103060205020004080707
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

John Bokma wrote:
> Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>
>> And you never had any credebility (sic) to start with!
> ^^^
> [sic]
>
> ;-)
Huh? Apparently you cannot see the true irony of your ignorance!

If you are implying that I wrongly used () instead of [] I point you to
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sic where it clearly states:

Square brackets are _most commonly_ used around the word 'sic' (from
the Latin 'sicut', meaning 'just as'), to explain the status of an
apparent mistake.

(emphasis mine). So I guess you are saying that unless I use the "most
common" forms of words, expressions and punctuation then I must be an
idiot. Hmmm... if that were truly the case then every word, expression
and punctuation would have to have one, and only one, definition or
usage. How asinine! Most logical people would understand the phrase of
"most commonly" to mean that there are indeed other instances.
Apparently you can't get your tiny pea brain to wrap around such things.
Must suck to live in such a one dimensional world such as yours where
only one interpretation is tolerated. You must be a real pip at parties!
--
Andrew DeFaria
On the keyboard of life, always keep one finger on the escape key.

--------------040103060205020004080707
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit







John Bokma wrote:

cite="mid:Xns9A788ECE997D5castleamber@130.133.1.4" type="cite">Andrew
DeFaria wrote:

And you never
had any credebility (sic) to start with!

^^^

[sic]



;-)

Square brackets are most commonly used around the
word 'sic' (from the
Latin 'sicut', meaning 'just as'), to explain the status of an apparent
mistake.

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

Andrew DeFaria wrote:

> I've been doing so for years son

I hate to break the news, you being the product of severe inbreeding
doesn't make me your son.

--
John

http://johnbokma.com/perl/

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------040302080005050409000105
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

John Bokma wrote:
> Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>> I've been doing so for years son
> I hate to break the news, you being the product of severe inbreeding
> doesn't make me your son.
Care to post something relevant?

You are my son in that you are my intellectual inferior son. I see you
decided to neglect everything else I said, thereby cementing the fact
that you're being totally intellectually dishonest as well as inferior.

Now git back in the house 'cause momma needs to give you a whooping fer
sure!

I've already spanking you so many ways my hand hurts....
--
Andrew DeFaria
E Pluribus Modem

--------------040302080005050409000105
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit







John Bokma wrote:

cite="mid:Xns9A789A12C3511castleamber@130.133.1.4" type="cite">Andrew
DeFaria wrote:

I've been
doing so for years son

I hate to break the news, you being the product of severe inbreeding
doesn't make me your son.

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

John Bokma wrote:
> "Gordon Etly" wrote:
>
>> John Bokma wrote:
>>> "V.Ronans" wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Yes, when _programming_, not with geenral petty conversations, such
>>>> responses as "it's Perl not perl or PERL" serve NO PURPOSE.
>>>
>>> Yes they do:
>>>
>>> A perl programmer is not the same as a Perl programmer.
>>> A perl hacker is not the same as a Perl hacker.
>>
>> There is no real difference.
>
> Yes there is. I can be hired as a Perl programmer, but if you are
> looking for a perl programmer, I have to turn your project down.

Based on 'man perl' or 'perdoc perl', you would be wrong to pass
rejection on these grounds.


$ perldoc perl | head -n 6
PERL(1) User Contributed Perl Documentation PERL(1)


NAME
perl - Practical Extraction and Report Language


So according to Perl's own documentation, PERL or perl, Perl, "Practical
Extraction and Report Language" are all perfectly reasonable.

>> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=PERL
>>
>> The spelling "Perl" is preferred over the older "PERL" (even
>> though some explain the language's name as originating in the
>> acronym for "Practical Extraction and Report Language"). The
>> program that interprets/compiles Perl code is called "perl",
>> typically "/usr/local/bin/perl" or "/usr/bin/perl".
>
> Who do you trust more? People who make a living working with Perl on a
> daily basis, who have contributed to the language in one way or
> another, or some dictionary entry?

I trust perldoc and the man pages. Or do they suddenly not matter
anymore?

Do 'man perl' or 'perldoc perl' yourself.

>>> I also use it as a quick way to see if someone knows what he/she is
>>> talking about. Someone who claims to be a PERL programmer tells me
>>> that I probably never want to maintain his/her code.
>>
>> That's a very poor measuring stick.
>
> Based on my experience of quite some years: *anyone* I have seen
> constantly refering to Perl as PERL had either never programmed a
> single line in Perl, or was an absolute newbie.

Complete nonsense. Anyone who has read Perl's own documentation could
say PERL or perl or "Practical Extraction and Report Language" and be
perfectly legitimate programmers.

>> Seems also hypocritical, considering
>> some of the more well known people in this group are known for doing
>> thing differently (Abigail for her interesting alternate forms of
>> quoting in replies,
>
> Yes, used to annoy me as well. But the alternate quoting has nothing
> to do with Perl or perl (heh, or a lot ;-) ), and the value of the
> content of *his* [1] posts severely outweights the quoting.

Well I would say the way someone write the word "perl" is just as
harmless, yet some of you insist on being so stubborn, despite how
Perl's own docs prove you wrong.

>> Uri for his inability to use the shift key, and so
>> forth),
>
> Yeah, those people who have English as their second lenguage :-D.

English isn't the only language to capitalize at the beginning of a
sentence, proper nouns, etc.

>> to judge some random bloke who may also choose to be different.
>
> If his piece was well written, nobody would have made a point of his
> misspelling of Perl.

Why make such a point at all? As far as I'm concerned, considering how
'man perl'/'perldoc perl' put it, there is NO reason to make such a
point in the first place, or do Perl's own docs not matter when it's
inconvenient?

--
G.Etly

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 09:25:02 -0700, Gordon Etly wrote:
> David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) wrote:

[...]

>> Because reading the FAQ, paying attention to detail and understanding
>> what people tell them are aspects of knowing how to program in Perl.
>
> No, you can judge someone purely on grounds like that.

And we don't. We also judge people on how they respond to being
corrected. Some accept it in good grace, others don't. Normally the
ones that don't are realy hard to convenice on other issues
particularly advice on good programing sytle and techniques that
should be avoided.

[...]

>> You will find that people don't care about the spelling of random
>> words, its only when people start talking about Perl specific words
>> does it start to mattor.
>
> Yes, but "PERL" and "Practical Extraction and Report Language" come fro
> mthe man/perldoc page for "perl", how can one get more official then
> something's own man page?

The all cap sequence is a side effect of man.

> Are you saying the FAQ for this group, a user
> contributed document, as valvuable as it may be, carries more weight
> then Perl's own man page?

man perlfaq

They carry the same waight as perl's own man page because perl's man
page incorperates the FAQ for this group.

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

John Bokma wrote:
> Johann Kappacher wrote:
>
>>> Ok, Uri is right in saying that the FAQ explains it well.
>>> But the FAQ also states that you can follow the guideline ... or
>>> not.
>>>
>>> Uri is writing "perl actually has stronger typing than many langs"
>>> and (in a followup) "perl and other langs".
>
>
> Uri avoids the shift key for one reason or another. Regs here don't
> mistake Uri for a newbie, and hence read over this.

But he's telling everyone else to use "Perl" and instead writes
"perl"... is there nothing wrong with that picture? Especially if Perl's
own docs point to the contrary?

> The problem with people who use PERL, or perl if they mean Perl, and
> vice versa, often are newbies.

Or they actually read Perl's documentation. Or again, does perldoc/man
suddenly not matter because it's inconvenient?

--
G.Etly

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 13:03:52 -0700, Andrew DeFaria wrote:

[...]

> John Bokma wrote:
>> Andrew DeFaria wrote:

[...]

>>> I've given up even a casual interest in ASCII art I'd say back in the
>>> 70's son...
>> It shows.
> Indeed! It shows that I have a lot more taste than to admire ASCII
> "art". That's for geeks who have never quite graduated from DOS

And the IETF.

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

On 6 Apr 2008 18:10:03 GMT, John Bokma wrote:

[...]

> Yes, used to annoy me as well. But the alternate quoting has nothing to
> do with Perl or perl (heh, or a lot ;-) ), and the value of the content
> of *his* [1] posts severely outweights the quoting.

Foot note not found.

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

John Bokma wrote:
> Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>
>> Attachment decoded: text-html-3
>
> Oops, you just lost any credebility :-D

While on UseNet you generally do not post HTML, since you have pointed
out there is plain-text version, should not a sensible news reader use
only that part if all you want is plain-text, just as any sensible mail
reader does? This is how mine behaves. Surely what ever reader you have
could do the same?

With that said, it would be nice to keep everything in plain-text only,
though in this day and age, I don't think it should be so surprising to
see messages in multiple formats?

--
G.Etly

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

John W. Krahn wrote:
> Gordon Etly wrote:
>> A. Sinan Unur wrote:
>>> "Gordon Etly" wrote in
>>> news:65r17iF2h5fbhU1@mid.individual.net:
>>>
>>>> John Bokma wrote:
>>> ...
>>>>> Moreover, Perl is the programming language, and perl is the
>>>>> executable, hence there is a good reason to be case sensitive.
>>>>> Hence, perl [...] is poorly typed seems to refer to the
>>>>> executable, hence Dr. Ruud's question.
>>>> As someone else pointed out, in many other groups centered around
>>>> a particular programming language, no one pays this kind of
>>>> attention of people like your self seem to.
>>> Have you tried posting a question about a non-existence language
>>> called C/C++ in comp.lang.c?
>>
>> Yes I have. They are related languages. C++ is based on C. Most
>> people seem to understand that, while also understanding what sets
>> them apart.
>>> Think of the distinction between Perl and perl a clue-meter.
>>
>> But that is just wrong. If the man/perldoc page for "perl" reads
>> like, $ perldoc perl | head -n 10
>> PERL(1) User Contributed Perl Documentation PERL(1)
>> ^^^^
>
> Are you saying that the roff(7) formatting of a header implies
> something?

Actually, yes. Because any perldoc or man I've tested on 8 different
types of platforms all display it the same way and this is how people
would read it. Even man2html shows "PERL (1)" at the top.

Although, it's not so much the header formatting (maybe I should not of
underscored on the header), it's the fact that (which you conveniently
snipped: ),


$ perldoc perl | head -n 10
PERL(1) User Contributed Perl Documentation PERL(1)

NAME
perl - Practical Extraction and Report Language
^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

"Practical Extraction and Report Language" implies an acronym in some
way or another, and so you cannot really blame someone for using "perl"
or "PERL" as both forms could be used to denote an acronym. Since this
is in the main Documentation for Perl, then it is fair game, unless you
no longer consider Perl's own documentation to be of value.

--
G.Etly

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------060100010901020605000604
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) wrote:
>>>> I've given up even a casual interest in ASCII art I'd say back in
>>>> the 70's son...
>>> It shows.
>> Indeed! It shows that I have a lot more taste than to admire ASCII
>> "art". That's for geeks who have never quite graduated from DOS
> And the IETF.
Or was never really a part of, as the case probably is... In any case,
ASCII "art", as the kind referred to here, is decidedly inferior to all
other arts. Besides I have no requirement to admire or respect it.
Respect is earned!
--
Andrew DeFaria
If all the world is a stage, where is the audience sitting?

--------------060100010901020605000604
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit







David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) wrote:

cite="mid:slrnfvifaq.b50.dformosa@localhost.localdomain" type="cite">

I've given
up even a casual interest in ASCII art I'd say back in the 70's son...

It shows.

Indeed! It shows that I have a lot more taste than to admire ASCII
"art". That's for geeks who have never quite graduated from DOS

And the IETF.

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------060902090206070302000803
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) wrote:
> On 6 Apr 2008 18:10:03 GMT, John Bokma wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> Yes, used to annoy me as well. But the alternate quoting has nothing
>> to do with Perl or perl (heh, or a lot ;-) ), and the value of the
>> content of *his* [1] posts severely outweights the quoting.
> Foot note not found.
Perhaps because his foot is inserted in his mouth!
--
Andrew DeFaria
What happened to Preparations A through G?

--------------060902090206070302000803
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit







David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) wrote:

cite="mid:slrnfvifea.b50.dformosa@localhost.localdomain" type="cite">On
6 Apr 2008 18:10:03 GMT, John Bokma wrote:



[...]

Yes, used to
annoy me as well. But the alternate quoting has nothing to do with Perl
or perl (heh, or a lot ;-) ), and the value of the content of *his* [1]
posts severely outweights the quoting.

Foot note not found.

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

John Bokma wrote:
> "Gordon Etly" wrote:
>
>> If someone is a good programmer with the Perl language, does
>> it really make a difference how they spell it as long as they know
>> what they are doing?
>
> IMO a good Perl programmer knows the difference between Perl and perl,
> and knows when to use which one.


There you go again, completely ignoring what 'man perl' and 'perldoc
perl' say:

I would think a good programmer would also have read Perl's own
documentation, which validates the usage of Perl as an acronym:

$ perldoc perl | head -n 10
PERL(1) User Contributed Perl Documentation PERL(1)


NAME
perl - Practical Extraction and Report Language
^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Even http://perldoc.perl.org/perl.html says:
"perl - Practical Extraction and Report Language"

--
G.Etly

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------000208050206040502020702
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Gordon Etly wrote:
> John Bokma wrote:
>> Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>>> Attachment decoded: text-html-3
>> Oops, you just lost any credebility :-D
> While on UseNet you generally do not post HTML,
No, when on Usenet *you* generally do not post HTML. I do.
> since you have pointed out there is plain-text version,
Did I? Or did you mean John?
> should not a sensible news reader use only that part if all you want
> is plain-text, just as any sensible mail
> reader does? This is how mine behaves. Surely what ever reader you
> have could do the same?
Indeed. This is, last time I checked, 2008. Surely software can be smart
enough to tell the difference. Ya know once on SuSE Linux I typed "more
file.html". More rendered the html file and put out a little note that
stated if I wanted to see the raw file to type "more file.html:". Gee
imagine that. Plain old more (probably less as I have long since aliased
more=less) taught a new trick to render html. In 2004 no less!

The post has plain text part first and HTML part second. After seeing
the plain text and coming upon HTML in your plain text, psychedelic
60's, ASCII only news reading software, why, praytell didn't you simply
skip to the next message? And don't complain to me that it's ugly! I
mean it you who is using a ASCII only news reader. Surely you are used
to ugly by now!
> With that said, it would be nice to keep everything in plain-text
> only, though in this day and age, I don't think it should be so
> surprising to see messages in multiple formats?
And I would not think it's so abnormal to acquire decent software that
can handle such things as HTML. It's only been what? Some 15 years now...

Then again we are arguing with pinheads who like to argue about the
cosmic significance between "perl" and "Perl"... :-(
--
Andrew DeFaria
You can't tell which way the train went by looking at the track.

--------------000208050206040502020702
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit







Gordon Etly wrote:

cite="mid:65ss69F2hccjjU1@mid.individual.net" type="cite">John Bokma
wrote:

Andrew DeFaria
wrote:

Attachment
decoded: text-html-3

Oops, you just lost any credebility :-D

While on UseNet you generally do not post HTML,

cite="mid:65ss69F2hccjjU1@mid.individual.net" type="cite"> since you
have pointed out there is plain-text version,

cite="mid:65ss69F2hccjjU1@mid.individual.net" type="cite"> should not
a sensible news reader use only that part if all you want is
plain-text, just as any sensible mail

reader does? This is how mine behaves. Surely what ever reader you have
could do the same?

cite="mid:65ss69F2hccjjU1@mid.individual.net" type="cite">With that
said, it would be nice to keep everything in plain-text only, though in
this day and age, I don't think it should be so surprising to see
messages in multiple formats?

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

Gordon Etly wrote:
>
> There you go again, completely ignoring what 'man perl' and 'perldoc
> perl' say:
>
> I would think a good programmer would also have read Perl's own
> documentation, which validates the usage of Perl as an acronym:
>
> $ perldoc perl | head -n 10
> PERL(1) User Contributed Perl Documentation PERL(1)
>
>
> NAME
> perl - Practical Extraction and Report Language
> ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Even http://perldoc.perl.org/perl.html says:
> "perl - Practical Extraction and Report Language"

Another (better?) citation: http://tinyurl.com/o6ll4

Frank
--
Dipl.-Inform. Frank Seitz; http://www.fseitz.de/
Anwendungen für Ihr Internet und Intranet
Tel: 04103/180301; Fax: -02; Industriestr. 31, 22880 Wedel

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------040204030805010609010002
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Gordon Etly wrote:
> Actually, yes. Because any perldoc or man I've tested on 8 different
> types of platforms all display it the same way and this is how people
> would read it. Even man2html shows "PERL (1)" at the top.
>
> Although, it's not so much the header formatting (maybe I should not
> of underscored on the header), it's the fact that (which you
> conveniently snipped: ),
>
> $ perldoc perl | head -n 10
> PERL(1) User Contributed Perl Documentation PERL(1)
>
> NAME
> perl - Practical Extraction and Report Language
> ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> "Practical Extraction and Report Language" implies an acronym in some
> way or another, and so you cannot really blame someone for using
> "perl" or "PERL" as both forms could be used to denote an acronym.
> Since this is in the main Documentation for Perl, then it is fair
> game, unless you no longer consider Perl's own documentation to be of
> value.
No he didn't conveniently snipped rather he deliberately snipped it
because such facts are inconvenient to his argument... which, I might
add, doesn't hold water....
--
Andrew DeFaria
If we are what we eat, I'm cheap, fast, and easy.

--------------040204030805010609010002
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit







Gordon Etly wrote:

cite="mid:65ssjhF2h3hl4U1@mid.individual.net" type="cite">Actually,
yes. Because any perldoc or man I've tested on 8 different  types of
platforms all display it the same way and this is how people  would
read it. Even man2html shows "PERL (1)" at the top.



Although, it's not so much the header formatting (maybe I should not of
underscored on the header), it's the fact that (which you conveniently
snipped: ),



$ perldoc perl | head -n 10

PERL(1) User Contributed Perl Documentation PERL(1)



NAME

perl - Practical Extraction and Report Language

^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^



"Practical Extraction and Report Language" implies an acronym in some
way or another, and so you cannot really blame someone for using "perl"
or "PERL" as both forms could be used to denote an acronym. Since this
is in the main Documentation for Perl, then it is fair game, unless you
no longer consider Perl's own documentation to be of value.

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 14:12:56 -0700, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
[...]
> David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) wrote:
>>
[...]
>>> Indeed! It shows that I have a lot more taste than to admire ASCII
>>> "art". That's for geeks who have never quite graduated from DOS
>> And the IETF.
> Or was never really a part of, as the case probably is... In any case,
> ASCII "art", as the kind referred to here, is decidedly inferior to all
> other arts. Besides I have no requirement to admire or respect it.

So you have no respect for RFC793?

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

Uri Guttman a écrit :
>>>>>> "j" == jm writes:
>
> j> perl provides good things and bad ones.
> j> In the good thing, such as:
> j> * it is adapted for text processing
> j> * it is poorly typed
>
> me thinks you don't understand typing well. perl actually has stronger
> typing than many langs. it just types on the variable type (scalar vs
> array vs hash) instead of the data type.

When passing a parameter to a function, in Perl, I do not know any way
to say that the type of the parameter is a hash table which associate
strings to integer, for example.

When in a language such as java (or Java) you can say it is a
HashMap

In Perl, I know a $ parameter is a scalar, a %, a hash, a @, a table,
and; optionals.

For the rest, I believe type is not checked at function call, but at
data use.

> j> * it is enough powerful with unicode
> j> * provide arrays and hash and reference (and objects)
> j> * transparently manage any kind of numbers.
> j> * is C interfacable
> j> * has basic network and IPC possibilities
>
> basic??? cpan has modules for almost every protocol out there and IPC
> support is all done too. you don't know perl well if you say this is basic.

I used basic to mean low level.

It is clear than when you have enough good low-level functions, you can
use them to provide higher level functions (such as those protocols)

> j> * pack/unpack
>
> that is a major part of perl? it is used but not that often by most
> coders.

It is one practical way to access binary data.

And binary is not so uncommon.


> j> In the bad things, such as:
> j> * bytes/unicode confusion
> j> * stack overflow within bad regular expression
>
> huh?? then don't write bad regexes. most likely if it blows up in perl
> it will do worse in other langs.

I have yet read that Perl regexs are best than every other ones.

What I mean here is there is no way (I know) to check a coder did not
write bad regexes.

When Perl 5 encourages use of regexs,

But I need to read some Perl 6 rules documentation.


> j> * memory consumption (might be an issue when energy will be more expensive?)

> what?? you are smoking very strange stuff. ram is cheap and always
> getting cheaper. cpu speed is the power hog.

According to some web sites (1),
1 Gbytes memory might "smoke" 60 watts, when
Pentium 4 3.2 Ghz version E might "smoke" 75 watts.

But I do not know if those figures are good.

Also, I read that in developed countries, data center energy consumption
is greater than 1% of (electrical?) energy. When energy is not less
and less expensive (2).

I do not know this subject, so you might be right, waste of energy might
be not related to memory.


> j> * insufficient typing
>
> again, you don't know what you are talking about.

I explained the way I consider this upper.


> j> * some portability issue, notably with function «system».
>
> proof of the last comment. system is the way to call external
> programs. how could that POSSIBLY BE PORTABLE if the external programs
> vary from box to box?

I assume that what you call the external program is the shell.

In my opinion, call to external programs should be done based on one of
the two following ideas:

idea 1/ A function which provides pipes for stdin, stdout, stderr and
(if possible) portable access to exit values.

idea 2/ Some minishell embedded within Perl, in order to interpret pipes
and redirections from to files.

I prefer idea 1 to idea 2.


> j> * some $@% issues.
>
> no, you have some issues.

Yes this is the point.

In Perl 5, some coders might be confused by sigils ($@%).

It seams I have read they will be modified in Perl 6 to improve this issue.

> j> * pack limitation: cannot just modify one byte.
>
> huh??? pack doesn't modify anything. pack converts a list of values to a
> single buffer string. and the C format can pack a single byte.

Yes, thats what pack/unpack does.

In C, some coders access binary data with struct/union.
I do not like this because it is not portable.

I do not like the way Java access binary data, because bytes are signed.

At first, the pack/unpack looks pleasant to me, an elegant way, based on
a format string to separate low level bytes from upper level data.

But one day, I just wanted to modify just one single byte.

> j> perl6 looks like a cleanup of perl, but I am wondering:
>
> j> how will memory be handled in perl6?
>
> just find with true gc.

Does this mean an effort will be done to reduce memory consumption?

> j> how will bytes be handled in perl6?
>
> with stone tablets.

What a pity. This mean it will be not improved.

> j> why perl6 encourages complex regex (as x become standard)?
>
> wtf are you babbling about? perl6 has grammars and rules which blow away
> all current regex engines. you need to read up on them. in fact you can
> use a bunch of it in perl5 now with cpan modules.

I did not yet understand how works rules in Perl 6.

Might be it gives a way to simplify the following expression from perlfaq6:

s{
/\* ## Start of /* ... */ comment
[^*]*\*+ ## Non-* followed by 1-or-more *’s
(
[^/*][^*]*\*+
)* ## 0-or-more things which don’t start with /
## but do end with ’*’
/ ## End of /* ... */ comment

| ## OR various things which aren’t comments:

(
" ## Start of " ... " string
(
\\. ## Escaped char
| ## OR
[^"\\] ## Non "\
)*
" ## End of " ... " string

| ## OR

’ ## Start of ’ ... ’ string
(
\\. ## Escaped char
| ## OR
[^’\\] ## Non ’\
)*
’ ## End of ’ ... ’ string

| ## OR

. ## Anything other char
[^/"’\\]* ## Chars which doesn’t start a comment,
string or escape
)
}{defined $2 ? $2 : ""}gxse;



> j> how will perl6 address portability issues?
>
> what issues?

There was so much portability issues in Perl 5 than the first question
is probably bad.

> j> how will perl6 address IPC issues?
>
> again, what issues? there are no IPC issues, other than your
> delusions. perl has fine IPC.

A function which provides pipes for stdin, stdout, stderr and (if
possible) portable access to exit values.

When I tried to do IPC, what I was missing was a function similar to
system, but which
allow managing every pipes (stdin, stdout, stderr) and any kind of
return vale (exit code, signal).
I did not find this in perlfunc.

> uri



1/
http://www.ginjfo.com/Publics/Actualites/Act1-84-Evaluation- de-la-consommation-electrique-d-un-PC.html

2/
«dans les pays développés, la consommation énergétique des data centers
dépasse largement 1% de la consommation globale.
Or, la tendance n'est pas franchement à la baisse du coût de l'énergie.»
http://www.guideinformatique.com/fiche-consommation_electriq ue_des_data_centers-846.htm

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

Andrew DeFaria wrote:
> Gordon Etly wrote:
>> John Bokma wrote:
>>> Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>>>
>>>> Attachment decoded: text-html-3
>>> Oops, you just lost any credebility :-D
>> While on UseNet you generally do not post HTML,
> No, when on Usenet *you* generally do not post HTML. I do.
>
>> since you have pointed out there is plain-text version,
> Did I? Or did you mean John?

I think you misunderstood me. I was just pointing out that your posts
are multipart messages (a section for "Content-Type: text/plain;" and
another for "Content-Type: text/html;") and that people who wish to read
only in plain-text should be seeing just the plain-text section, if the
reader works in such a sensible way. Those who do not mind html will
likely view that part. This was all I meant. And this is why I don't
feel it should be a much of a problem as some people make it out to be.

What part one sees by default should be as par one's preferences.


--
G.Etly

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------070907050201010808030803
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 14:12:56 -0700, Andrew DeFaria
> wrote:
> [...]
>> David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) wrote:
> [...]
>>>> Indeed! It shows that I have a lot more taste than to admire ASCII
>>>> "art". That's for geeks who have never quite graduated from DOS
>>> And the IETF.
>> Or was never really a part of, as the case probably is... In any
>> case, ASCII "art", as the kind referred to here, is decidedly
>> inferior to all other arts. Besides I have no requirement to admire
>> or respect it.
> So you have no respect for RFC793?
Is that the RFC that requires all people to respect ASCII "art"? If not
then please explain. AFAICT this RFC is for TCP. How does TCP and ASCII
art relate?
--
Andrew DeFaria
If bankers can count, how come they have eight windows and only four
tellers?

--------------070907050201010808030803
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit







David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) wrote:

cite="mid:slrnfvij85.b50.dformosa@localhost.localdomain" type="cite">On
Sun, 06 Apr 2008 14:12:56 -0700, Andrew DeFaria
wrote:

[...]

David Formosa
(aka ? the Platypus) wrote:

[...]

Indeed! It
shows that I have a lot more taste than to admire ASCII "art". That's
for geeks who have never quite graduated from DOS

And the IETF.

Or was never really a part of, as the case probably is... In any case,
ASCII "art", as the kind referred to here, is decidedly inferior to all
other arts. Besides I have no requirement to admire or respect it.

So you have no respect for RFC793?

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 09:25:02 -0700, Gordon Etly
> wrote:
>> David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>> Because reading the FAQ, paying attention to detail and
>>> understanding what people tell them are aspects of knowing how to
>>> program in Perl.
>>
>> No, you can judge someone purely on grounds like that.
>
> And we don't. We also judge people on how they respond to being
> corrected.

Well, given 'perldoc perl'/'man perl', stating near the top,
"perl - Practical Extraction and Report Language",
it is perfectly valid to use "perl" or "PERL", as that abbreviates the
above.

So the attempting to "correct" someone for using "perl" or "PERL"
contradicts Perl's own documentation. The "regulars" are always saying
to read perldoc, amongst other things, yet conveniently forget about the
main document.

Since it's in Perl's own docs, using the acronym of, or in full,
"Practical Extraction and Report Language" is fair game.

> [...]
>
>>> You will find that people don't care about the spelling of random
>>> words, its only when people start talking about Perl specific words
>>> does it start to mattor.
>>
>> Yes, but "PERL" and "Practical Extraction and Report Language" come
>> fro mthe man/perldoc page for "perl", how can one get more official
>> then something's own man page?
>
> The all cap sequence is a side effect of man.
>
>> Are you saying the FAQ for this group, a user
>> contributed document, as valvuable as it may be, carries more weight
>> then Perl's own man page?
>
> man perlfaq
>
> They carry the same waight as perl's own man page because perl's man
> page incorperates the FAQ for this group.

That may be, but how does that change the fact that the main document,
'perdoc perl'/'man perl', completely contradicts those attempting to
impose such corrections on people who use "perl" or "PERL"?

--
G.Etly

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

Frank Seitz wrote:
> Gordon Etly wrote:
>>
>> There you go again, completely ignoring what 'man perl' and 'perldoc
>> perl' say:
>>
>> I would think a good programmer would also have read Perl's own
>> documentation, which validates the usage of Perl as an acronym:
>>
>> $ perldoc perl | head -n 10
>> PERL(1) User Contributed Perl Documentation PERL(1)
>>
>>
>> NAME
>> perl - Practical Extraction and Report Language
>> ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> Even http://perldoc.perl.org/perl.html says:
>> "perl - Practical Extraction and Report Language"
>
> Another (better?) citation: http://tinyurl.com/o6ll4

Perhaps.

"Randal Schwartz capitalised the language's name to
make it stand out better when typeset. This convention
was adopted by the community"

Ok.

"You may or may not choose to follow this usage"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Alright.

"But never write "PERL", because perl is not an acronym,
apocryphal folklore and post-facto expansions
notwithstanding."

This last quote is contradicted by the main Perl document, that gives
the "NAME" of the language as:

"perl - Practical Extraction and Report Language"

Which IS an acronym. Or at the very least allows one to write "perl" or
"PERL" to abbreviate that. Again, you just cannot ignore the main
document.

--
G.Etly

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

>>>>> "j" == jm writes:

j> Uri Guttman a écrit :
>>>>>>> "j" == jm writes:
>>
j> perl provides good things and bad ones.
j> In the good thing, such as:
j> * it is adapted for text processing
j> * it is poorly typed
>>
>> me thinks you don't understand typing well. perl actually has stronger
>> typing than many langs. it just types on the variable type (scalar vs
>> array vs hash) instead of the data type.

j> When passing a parameter to a function, in Perl, I do not know any way
j> to say that the type of the parameter is a hash table which associate
j> strings to integer, for example.

why do you need such a beast? you name the variable according to its
use. if you use it incorrectly, that then is your fault. that sort of
typing is anal to an extreme. what if there is no class type for the
hash you want? what if different members of the hash have different
value types (as in a structure)? you can't prename hash types for all
possible types so why even bother?

j> When in a language such as java (or Java) you can say it is a
j> HashMap

useless information as it should be in the variable name.

j> In Perl, I know a $ parameter is a scalar, a %, a hash, a @, a table,
j> and; optionals.

those are prototypes and you have it wrong. besides, prototypes in perl
are not a good thing and no experienced hacker uses them.

j> For the rest, I believe type is not checked at function call, but at
j> data use.

correct. and that is stronger than compile time checking as you can fake
out compile time with all sorts of tricks in most langs.

j> * it is enough powerful with unicode
j> * provide arrays and hash and reference (and objects)
j> * transparently manage any kind of numbers.
j> * is C interfacable
j> * has basic network and IPC possibilities
>>
>> basic??? cpan has modules for almost every protocol out there and IPC
>> support is all done too. you don't know perl well if you say this is basic.

j> I used basic to mean low level.

and what high level IPC do you mean and what is missing? you don't know
IPC if you claim that about perl.

j> It is clear than when you have enough good low-level functions, you can
j> use them to provide higher level functions (such as those protocols)

j> * pack/unpack
>>
>> that is a major part of perl? it is used but not that often by most
>> coders.

j> It is one practical way to access binary data.

j> And binary is not so uncommon.

it isn't used in most perl programs. as someone who is a professional
perl code reviewer i don't see pack nor binary used in perl nearly as
much as text. that isn't to say pack/binary aren't important but it
isn't a major part of perl as such. and even for many binary things,
there are modules that handle it for you. cpan is your friend.


j> In the bad things, such as:
j> * bytes/unicode confusion
j> * stack overflow within bad regular expression
>>
>> huh?? then don't write bad regexes. most likely if it blows up in perl
>> it will do worse in other langs.

j> I have yet read that Perl regexs are best than every other ones.

huh? ever heard the expression 'perl compatible regular expressions'?
every other language claims that (check out 'pcre' and you will
see). they all want to have perl's regexes. and none of them really do.


j> * memory consumption (might be an issue when energy will be more expensive?)

>> what?? you are smoking very strange stuff. ram is cheap and always
>> getting cheaper. cpu speed is the power hog.

j> According to some web sites (1),
j> 1 Gbytes memory might "smoke" 60 watts, when
j> Pentium 4 3.2 Ghz version E might "smoke" 75 watts.

this makes no sense. the whole motherboard 'smokes' even more. disk
drives smoke the most. where did you learn how to smoke?

j> I do not know this subject, so you might be right, waste of energy might
j> be not related to memory.

that is ram in the cpu, not ram used in the program. they are different
beasts.


j> * some portability issue, notably with function «system».
>>
>> proof of the last comment. system is the way to call external
>> programs. how could that POSSIBLY BE PORTABLE if the external programs
>> vary from box to box?

j> I assume that what you call the external program is the shell.

no, you can call directly to any external program bypassing the
shell. learn more about qx, system and exec from the docs.

j> In my opinion, call to external programs should be done based on one of
j> the two following ideas:

j> idea 1/ A function which provides pipes for stdin, stdout, stderr and
j> (if possible) portable access to exit values.

and perl has those in IPC::Run and many other modules. hmm, IPC modules!

j> idea 2/ Some minishell embedded within Perl, in order to interpret pipes
j> and redirections from to files.

huh??? perl doesn't need pipes internally as you don't have processes
inside perl. you need to learn more about this.


j> * some $@% issues.
>>
>> no, you have some issues.

j> Yes this is the point.

j> In Perl 5, some coders might be confused by sigils ($@%).

maybe you but most seem to learn it just fine.

j> * pack limitation: cannot just modify one byte.
>>
>> huh??? pack doesn't modify anything. pack converts a list of values to a
>> single buffer string. and the C format can pack a single byte.

j> Yes, thats what pack/unpack does.

but your statement about modifying one byte made no sense. i sense a
pattern here.

j> In C, some coders access binary data with struct/union.
j> I do not like this because it is not portable.

huh?? you can make c structs portable. the issues are more with
endianess.

j> At first, the pack/unpack looks pleasant to me, an elegant way, based on
j> a format string to separate low level bytes from upper level data.

j> But one day, I just wanted to modify just one single byte.

and you couldn't? why? show your code.

j> perl6 looks like a cleanup of perl, but I am wondering:
>>
j> how will memory be handled in perl6?
>>
>> just find with true gc.

j> Does this mean an effort will be done to reduce memory consumption?

that doesn't compute. ram usage and gc are not related.

j> how will bytes be handled in perl6?
>>
>> with stone tablets.

j> What a pity. This mean it will be not improved.

perl6 has very sharp chisels!

j> why perl6 encourages complex regex (as x become standard)?
>>
>> wtf are you babbling about? perl6 has grammars and rules which blow away
>> all current regex engines. you need to read up on them. in fact you can
>> use a bunch of it in perl5 now with cpan modules.

j> I did not yet understand how works rules in Perl 6.

so don't denigrate them. you seem to have a habit of bitching about
stuff which you don't understand well.

j> Might be it gives a way to simplify the following expression from perlfaq6:

sure it does. but i won't translate it. this regex is an example just to
show how something CAN be done. and it is a very tricky problem
involving c style comments and strings. perl6 rules will be able to
parse nested complex stuff in a very high level way with libraries
(called grammars) of reusable rules.


j> how will perl6 address IPC issues?
>>
>> again, what issues? there are no IPC issues, other than your
>> delusions. perl has fine IPC.

j> A function which provides pipes for stdin, stdout, stderr and (if
j> possible) portable access to exit values.

you don't understand IPC at all it seems. perl5 has full access (both
high and low level) to all IPC features. you just don't see them.

uri

--
Uri Guttman ------ uri@stemsystems.com -------- http://www.sysarch.com --
----- Perl Code Review , Architecture, Development, Training, Support ------
--------- Free Perl Training --- http://perlhunter.com/college.html ---------
--------- Gourmet Hot Cocoa Mix ---- http://bestfriendscocoa.com ---------

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 09:25:02 -0700, Gordon Etly wrote:


>> Are you saying the FAQ for this group, a user
>> contributed document, as valvuable as it may be, carries more weight
>> then Perl's own man page?
>
> man perlfaq
>
> They carry the same waight as perl's own man page because perl's man
> page incorperates the FAQ for this group.


There is no FAQ for this newsgroup.

There is a FAQ for Perl, that ships with perl (but not with PERL).

So there is a FAQ for the topic of this newsgroup rather than
a FAQ for this newsgroup.


--
Tad McClellan
email: perl -le "print scalar reverse qq/moc.noitatibaher\100cmdat/"

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

Gordon Etly wrote:
> John Bokma wrote:
>> Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>>
>>> Attachment decoded: text-html-3
>>
>> Oops, you just lost any credebility :-D
>
> While on UseNet you generally do not post HTML, since you have pointed
> out there is plain-text version, should not a sensible news reader use
> only that part if all you want is plain-text, just as any sensible mail
> reader does? This is how mine behaves. Surely what ever reader you have
> could do the same?
>
> With that said, it would be nice to keep everything in plain-text only,
> though in this day and age, I don't think it should be so surprising to
> see messages in multiple formats?


I find HTML attachments on Usenet postings to be useful to me.


--
Tad McClellan
email: perl -le "print scalar reverse qq/moc.noitatibaher\100cmdat/"

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------020307010701060706090509
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Tad J McClellan wrote:
> David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) wrote:
>> On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 09:25:02 -0700, Gordon Etly wrote
>>> Are you saying the FAQ for this group, a user contributed document,
>>> as valvuable as it may be, carries more weight then Perl's own man page?
>> man perlfaq
>>
>> They carry the same waight as perl's own man page because perl's man
>> page incorperates the FAQ for this group.
> There is no FAQ for this newsgroup.
What an asinine statement! Who the fuck cares if there's a FAQ for this
newsgroup. This newsgroup is about Perl and there is a FAQ about that.
> There is a FAQ for Perl, that ships with perl (but not with PERL).
Actually it ships for all 3.
> So there is a FAQ for the topic of this newsgroup rather than a FAQ
> for this newsgroup.
Yeah and so?...
--
Andrew DeFaria
I'm in shape. Round is a shape.

--------------020307010701060706090509
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit







Tad J McClellan wrote:

cite="mid:slrnfvj1ir.vp8.tadmc@tadmc30.sbcglobal.net" type="cite">David
Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) wrote:

On Sun, 6 Apr
2008 09:25:02 -0700, Gordon Etly wrote

Are you
saying the FAQ for this group, a user contributed document, as
valvuable as it may be, carries more weight then Perl's own man page?

man perlfaq



They carry the same waight as perl's own man page because perl's man
page incorperates the FAQ for this group.

There is no FAQ for this newsgroup.

cite="mid:slrnfvj1ir.vp8.tadmc@tadmc30.sbcglobal.net" type="cite">There
is a FAQ for Perl, that ships with perl (but not with PERL).

cite="mid:slrnfvj1ir.vp8.tadmc@tadmc30.sbcglobal.net" type="cite">So
there is a FAQ for the topic of this newsgroup rather than a FAQ for
this newsgroup.

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------070500060506050003080900
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Uri Guttman wrote:
> j> When passing a parameter to a function, in Perl, I do not know any way
> j> to say that the type of the parameter is a hash table which associate
> j> strings to integer, for example.
>
> why do you need such a beast? you name the variable according to its
> use. if you use it incorrectly, that then is your fault.
Ah... to cut down the the number of "well it's your fault" type errors.
Humans make mistakes (like the constant mistake you keep making by not
properly capitalizing letters).
> j> When in a language such as java (or Java) you can say it is a
> j> HashMap
>
> useless information as it should be in the variable name.
Just because you can't understand it does not mean it's useless.
> j> In Perl, I know a $ parameter is a scalar, a %, a hash, a @, a table,
> j> and; optionals.
>
> those are prototypes and you have it wrong. besides, prototypes in
> perl are not a good thing and no experienced hacker uses them.
Yes, script kiddies don't. Experienced professional programmers on the
other hand...
> j> For the rest, I believe type is not checked at function call, but at
> j> data use.
>
> correct. and that is stronger than compile time checking as you can
> fake out compile time with all sorts of tricks in most langs.
Yes so let's all rely on the weakest form of enforcement - convention of
the names of variables...
--
Andrew DeFaria
If a man stands in the middle of the forest speaking and there is no
woman around to hear him, is he still wrong?

--------------070500060506050003080900
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit







Uri Guttman wrote:

cite="mid:x7fxtyfoes.fsf@mail.sysarch.com" type="cite"> j> When
passing a parameter to a function, in Perl, I do not know any way

j> to say that the type of the parameter is a hash table which
associate

j> strings to integer, for example.



why do you need such a beast? you name the variable according to its
use. if you use it incorrectly, that then is your fault.

cite="mid:x7fxtyfoes.fsf@mail.sysarch.com" type="cite"> j> When in
a language such as java (or Java) you can say it is a

j> HashMap<String, Integer>



useless information as it should be in the variable name.

cite="mid:x7fxtyfoes.fsf@mail.sysarch.com" type="cite"> j> In Perl,
I know a $ parameter is a scalar, a %, a hash, a @, a table,

j> and; optionals.



those are prototypes and you have it wrong. besides, prototypes in perl
are not a good thing and no experienced hacker uses them.

cite="mid:x7fxtyfoes.fsf@mail.sysarch.com" type="cite"> j> For the
rest, I believe type is not checked at function call, but at

j> data use.



correct. and that is stronger than compile time checking as you can
fake out compile time with all sorts of tricks in most langs.

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

>>>>> "AD" == Andrew DeFaria writes:

AD> Uri Guttman wrote:
j> When passing a parameter to a function, in Perl, I do not know any way
j> to say that the type of the parameter is a hash table which associate
j> strings to integer, for example.

AD> why do you need such a beast? you name the variable according
AD> to its use. if you use it incorrectly, that then is your
AD> fault.

AD> Ah... to cut down the the number of "well it's your fault" type
AD> errors. Humans make mistakes (like the constant mistake you keep
AD> making by not properly capitalizing letters).

mistake? i lost my caps lock key!! it is now control which is where it
should be.

j> When in a language such as java (or Java) you can say it is a
j> HashMap

AD> useless information as it should be in the variable name.

AD> Just because you can't understand it does not mean it's useless.

huh?? i understand more code before 6am than you do in a year!

j> In Perl, I know a $ parameter is a scalar, a %, a hash, a @, a table,
j> and; optionals.

AD> those are prototypes and you have it wrong. besides,
AD> prototypes in perl are not a good thing and no experienced
AD> hacker uses them.

AD> Yes, script kiddies don't. Experienced professional programmers on
AD> the other hand...

huh? show me one serious perl hacker that uses and likes prototypes?
they have about one useful purpose (can you name it?). otherwise even
larry wall says they were a mistake. they aren't even prototypes as
other langs use the term.

j> For the rest, I believe type is not checked at function call, but at
j> data use.

AD> correct. and that is stronger than compile time checking as you can fake
AD> out compile time with all sorts of tricks in most langs.

AD> Yes so let's all rely on the weakest form of enforcement -
AD> convention of the names of variables...

you seem to be contrarian with no actual defense of your position. oh
well, off with your head!

uri

--
Uri Guttman ------ uri@stemsystems.com -------- http://www.sysarch.com --
----- Perl Code Review , Architecture, Development, Training, Support ------
--------- Free Perl Training --- http://perlhunter.com/college.html ---------
--------- Gourmet Hot Cocoa Mix ---- http://bestfriendscocoa.com ---------

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------010004070104040401080603
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Uri Guttman wrote:
> AD> Ah... to cut down the the number of "well it's your fault" type
> AD> errors. Humans make mistakes (like the constant mistake you keep
> AD> making by not properly capitalizing letters).
>
> mistake? i lost my caps lock key!! it is now control which is where it
> should be.
I'll personally donate a new caps lock key if you promise to use it! Deal?

Oh and BTW all you need is a fucking shift key. You're a punk - admit
it! A rebel for no good cause nor clue...
> j> When in a language such as java (or Java) you can say it is a
> j> HashMap
>
> AD> useless information as it should be in the variable name.
>
> AD> Just because you can't understand it does not mean it's useless.
>
> huh?? i understand more code before 6am than you do in a year!
You keep believing that bro as you apparently need it to have some
semblance of self esteem. Personally at 6 AM I'm sleeping...
> j> In Perl, I know a $ parameter is a scalar, a %, a hash, a @, a table,
> j> and; optionals.
>
> AD> those are prototypes and you have it wrong. besides,
> AD> prototypes in perl are not a good thing and no experienced
> AD> hacker uses them.
>
> AD> Yes, script kiddies don't. Experienced professional programmers on
> AD> the other hand...
>
> huh? show me one serious perl hacker that uses and likes prototypes?
Hackers? You mean as opposed to serious, professional programmers? Give
me a fucking break!
> they have about one useful purpose (can you name it?). otherwise even
> larry wall says they were a mistake. they aren't even prototypes as
> other langs use the term.
>
> j> For the rest, I believe type is not checked at function call, but at
> j> data use.
>
> AD> correct. and that is stronger than compile time checking as you
> can fake
> AD> out compile time with all sorts of tricks in most langs.
>
> AD> Yes so let's all rely on the weakest form of enforcement -
> AD> convention of the names of variables...
>
> you seem to be contrarian with no actual defense of your position. oh
> well, off with your head!
You should talk. Let's see you off my head there buddy. You can't even
fucking quote right! My statement stands. Your tack is to us the buddy
system of hackers. Hackers unite! We will take over the world, even
though we can't get laid! I bow to the obvious superiority of such a
position!

Still spilling my beer from this fucking funny shit!
--
Andrew DeFaria
What happened to the first 6 ups?

--------------010004070104040401080603
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit







Uri Guttman wrote:

cite="mid:x7hceecngg.fsf@mail.sysarch.com" type="cite">AD> Ah... to
cut down the the number of "well it's your fault" type

AD> errors. Humans make mistakes (like the constant mistake you keep

AD> making by not properly capitalizing letters).



mistake? i lost my caps lock key!! it is now control which is where it
should be.

cite="mid:x7hceecngg.fsf@mail.sysarch.com" type="cite"> j> When in
a language such as java (or Java) you can say it is a

j> HashMap<String, Integer>



AD> useless information as it should be in the variable name.



AD> Just because you can't understand it does not mean it's useless.



huh?? i understand more code before 6am than you do in a year!

cite="mid:x7hceecngg.fsf@mail.sysarch.com" type="cite"> j> In Perl,
I know a $ parameter is a scalar, a %, a hash, a @, a table,

j> and; optionals.



AD> those are prototypes and you have it wrong. besides,

AD> prototypes in perl are not a good thing and no experienced

AD> hacker uses them.



AD> Yes, script kiddies don't. Experienced professional programmers
on

AD> the other hand...



huh? show me one serious perl hacker that uses and likes prototypes?

cite="mid:x7hceecngg.fsf@mail.sysarch.com" type="cite">they have about
one useful purpose (can you name it?). otherwise even larry wall says
they were a mistake. they aren't even prototypes as other langs use the
term.



j> For the rest, I believe type is not checked at function call, but
at

j> data use.



AD> correct. and that is stronger than compile time checking as you
can fake

AD> out compile time with all sorts of tricks in most langs.



AD> Yes so let's all rely on the weakest form of enforcement -

AD> convention of the names of variables...



you seem to be contrarian with no actual defense of your position. oh
well, off with your head!

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

>>>>> "AD" == Andrew DeFaria writes:

AD> Uri Guttman wrote:
AD> Ah... to cut down the the number of "well it's your fault" type
AD> errors. Humans make mistakes (like the constant mistake you keep
AD> making by not properly capitalizing letters).

AD> mistake? i lost my caps lock key!! it is now control which is where it
AD> should be.

AD> I'll personally donate a new caps lock key if you promise to use it! Deal?

AD> Oh and BTW all you need is a fucking shift key. You're a punk -
AD> admit it! A rebel for no good cause nor clue...

oh, i now see what i am. i owe you a great debt!! see if you can cash it
in.

j> When in a language such as java (or Java) you can say it is a
j> HashMap

AD> useless information as it should be in the variable name.

AD> Just because you can't understand it does not mean it's useless.

AD> huh?? i understand more code before 6am than you do in a year!


AD> You keep believing that bro as you apparently need it to have
AD> some semblance of
AD> self esteem. Personally at 6 AM I'm sleeping...

nah, you just need to know when you were punked. (see i must be a punk!)

j> In Perl, I know a $ parameter is a scalar, a %, a hash, a @, a table,
j> and; optionals.

AD> those are prototypes and you have it wrong. besides,
AD> prototypes in perl are not a good thing and no experienced
AD> hacker uses them.

AD> Yes, script kiddies don't. Experienced professional programmers on
AD> the other hand...

AD> huh? show me one serious perl hacker that uses and likes prototypes?

AD> Hackers? You mean as opposed to serious, professional programmers?
AD> Give me a fucking break!

haha. and your cpan id is? if you denigrate the term perl hacker, you
are neither a perl coder nor a hacker. sorry but you are not allowed
into the clubhouse.


AD> you seem to be contrarian with no actual defense of your
AD> position. oh well, off with your head!

AD> You should talk. Let's see you off my head there buddy. You can't
AD> even fucking quote right! My statement stands. Your tack is to us
AD> the buddy system of hackers. Hackers unite! We will take over the
AD> world, even though we can't get laid! I bow to the obvious
AD> superiority of such a position!

me quote right? emacs does it fine. the other poster has quoting
issues.

AD> Still spilling my beer from this fucking funny shit!

all over your nice perl code. how sweet. go back to coding in java
please.

uri

--
Uri Guttman ------ uri@stemsystems.com -------- http://www.sysarch.com --
----- Perl Code Review , Architecture, Development, Training, Support ------
--------- Free Perl Training --- http://perlhunter.com/college.html ---------
--------- Gourmet Hot Cocoa Mix ---- http://bestfriendscocoa.com ---------

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

Uri Guttman wrote:
>>>>>>"j" == jm writes:
>
> j> perl provides good things and bad ones.
> j> In the good thing, such as:
> j> * it is adapted for text processing
> j> * it is poorly typed
>
> me thinks you don't understand typing well. perl actually has stronger
> typing than many langs. it just types on the variable type (scalar vs
> array vs hash) instead of the data type.

This is only true for the built-in types, not for
user-defined types (classes).

Frank
--
Dipl.-Inform. Frank Seitz; http://www.fseitz.de/
Anwendungen für Ihr Internet und Intranet
Tel: 04103/180301; Fax: -02; Industriestr. 31, 22880 Wedel

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

Tad J McClellan wrote:
> David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) wrote:
>> On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 09:25:02 -0700, Gordon Etly
>> wrote:
>
>>> Are you saying the FAQ for this group, a user
>>> contributed document, as valvuable as it may be, carries more weight
>>> then Perl's own man page?
>>
>> man perlfaq
>>
>> They carry the same waight as perl's own man page because perl's man
>> page incorperates the FAQ for this group.

> There is a FAQ for Perl, that ships with perl (but not with PERL).

According to perldoc (which we encouraged to use according to the clpm
guidelines, right?), perl/PERL/Perl are one and the same:

$ perldoc perl | head -n 6
PERL(1) User Contributed Perl Documentation PERL(1)


NAME
perl - Practical Extraction and Report Language


If this is one of the first documents one reads when starting out with
Perl, then why is it of any surprise that some people use "PERL",
"perl", and "Perl" interchangeably? It spells it out in the NAME line
that it is an acronym, and acronyms can be written in all lowercase,
uppercase, or even mixed-case.

> So there is a FAQ for the topic of this newsgroup rather than
> a FAQ for this newsgroup.

True, and a small part of it pertaining to the usage of the term
"perl"/"Perl" and not using "PERL" would seem to be in error according
to the main Perl document/man-page.

--
G.Etly

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

> j> * some portability issue, notably with function «system».
> >>
> >> proof of the last comment. system is the way to call external
> >> programs. how could that POSSIBLY BE PORTABLE if the external programs
> >> vary from box to box?
>
> j> I assume that what you call the external program is the shell.
>
> no, you can call directly to any external program bypassing the
> shell. learn more about qx, system and exec from the docs.
>
> j> In my opinion, call to external programs should be done based on one of
> j> the two following ideas:
>
> j> idea 1/ A function which provides pipes for stdin, stdout, stderr and
> j> (if possible) portable access to exit values.
>
> and perl has those in IPC::Run and many other modules. hmm, IPC modules!

I installed libipc-run-perl on a debian system.

This makes perldoc IPC::Run to work.
and me discovering IPC::Run.

According to this documentation, is it seams possible to start a process
accessing stdin, stdout and stderr,
my $h = start \@cat, \$in, \$out, \$err, timeout( 10 ) ;
and see the result value at
finish $h or die "cat returned $?" ;
in a non portable way with:
full_result
and in a portable way with
result

However I am wondering how this will work under ActiverPerl, Cygwin
Perl, and StrawberryPerl.

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

_
Gordon Etly (get@bentsys.com) wrote on VCCCXXXIII September MCMXCIII in
:
||
|| This last quote is contradicted by the main Perl document, that gives
|| the "NAME" of the language as:
||
|| "perl - Practical Extraction and Report Language"
||
|| Which IS an acronym.

No, it's not.

The first line of a manual page is the name of the binary (not the
language, the binary), followed by a one line description.

Take for instance "man man":

man - an interface to the on-line reference manuals

Would you claim, "man" is an acronym of "an interface to the on-line
reference manuals"? Of course not.

Just because the author of the manual page came up with an amusing line
whose starting letters make up the name of the binary doesn't make the
binary an acronym.

The technical term for it (the *description*) is Acrostic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acrostic

|| Or at the very least allows one to write "perl" or
|| "PERL" to abbreviate that.

Well, if you want to abbreviate a one line description, feel free to do
so, but then you could say "AITTORM" when you want to discuss man as well.
Would you then also start to rant if people ask what the hell you mean?

|| Again, you just cannot ignore the main
|| document.

No one is. But you're drawing unfounded conclusions.


Abigail
--
perl -we 'print q{print q{print q{print q{print q{print q{print q{print q{print
qq{Just Another Perl Hacker\n}}}}}}}}}' |\
perl -w | perl -w | perl -w | perl -w | perl -w | perl -w | perl -w | perl -w

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 21:26:35 -0500, Tad J McClellan
wrote:

> David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) wrote:
>> On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 09:25:02 -0700, Gordon Etly wrote:
[...]
>> They carry the same waight as perl's own man page because perl's man
>> page incorperates the FAQ for this group.
>
>
> There is no FAQ for this newsgroup.
>
> There is a FAQ for Perl, that ships with perl (but not with PERL).

You mean the FAQ who's content is basically the comp.lang.perl.*
FAQ with the serial numbers filed off. You mean the FAQ that is
periodically posted in parts to this newsgroup? You mean the FAQ that
answers questions frequently asked in this newsgroup?

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 16:02:35 -0700, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
[...]

> David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) wrote:
>> On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 14:12:56 -0700, Andrew DeFaria
>> wrote:
[...]
>>> Or was never really a part of, as the case probably is... In any
>>> case, ASCII "art", as the kind referred to here, is decidedly
>>> inferior to all other arts. Besides I have no requirement to admire
>>> or respect it.
>> So you have no respect for RFC793?
> Is that the RFC that requires all people to respect ASCII "art"? If not
> then please explain. AFAICT this RFC is for TCP. How does TCP and ASCII
> art relate?

The FAQ is chock full of ASCII art which it uses to unambiguously describe
how TCP works. Infact the ASCII art description is so unambigious and easy
to read it is possable to create programs that parse the ASCII art and
generate whole TCP/IP stacks based on them.

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 00:26:21 +0200, jm wrote:
> Uri Guttman a écrit :
[...]
>> j> In the bad things, such as:
>> j> * bytes/unicode confusion
>> j> * stack overflow within bad regular expression
>>
>> huh?? then don't write bad regexes. most likely if it blows up in perl
>> it will do worse in other langs.
>
> I have yet read that Perl regexs are best than every other ones.
>
> What I mean here is there is no way (I know) to check a coder did not
> write bad regexes.

Sure, but there is no way in general to check a coder did not write bad
code. The only thing one can do is to have a good set of tests that will
weed out the good from the bad.

> When Perl 5 encourages use of regexs,

Perl5 allows the use of regexs where its approprate.

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------010908020105060302010704
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Uri Guttman wrote:
> AD> Oh and BTW all you need is a fucking shift key. You're a punk -
> AD> admit it! A rebel for no good cause nor clue...
>
> oh, i now see what i am. i owe you a great debt!! see if you can cash
> it in.
Why would you expect it to be cashable? The fact that you admit you're a
punk warms my heart and is all the payment I need.
> AD> You keep believing that bro as you apparently need it to have
> AD> some semblance of
> AD> self esteem. Personally at 6 AM I'm sleeping...
>
> nah, you just need to know when you were punked. (see i must be a punk!)
Yeah I guess you really told me. Gee I'm so hurt...
> AD> Hackers? You mean as opposed to serious, professional programmers?
> AD> Give me a fucking break!
>
> haha. and your cpan id is?
How is that relevant? Answer: It isn't!
> if you denigrate the term perl hacker, you are neither a perl coder
> nor a hacker.
Huh? I denigrate the term hacker - perl or otherwise.
> sorry but you are not allowed into the clubhouse.
See how childish you are? I don't need your fucking clubhouse son. I'm a
grown up. You're a kid. See the difference?
> AD> you seem to be contrarian with no actual defense of your
> AD> position. oh well, off with your head!
>
> AD> You should talk. Let's see you off my head there buddy. You can't
> AD> even fucking quote right! My statement stands. Your tack is to us
> AD> the buddy system of hackers. Hackers unite! We will take over the
> AD> world, even though we can't get laid! I bow to the obvious
> AD> superiority of such a position!
>
> me quote right? emacs does it fine. the other poster has quoting issues.
Hmmm.... Well I did not say "...you seem to be contrarian with no actual
defense of your position. oh well, off with your head!" - you did ya
fucking moron. Yet your emacs quote mode is clearly attributing that to
me with the "AD>". Apparently your lisp skills are right up there with
your perl and social skills.
> AD> Still spilling my beer from this fucking funny shit!
>
> all over your nice perl code. how sweet. go back to coding in java please.
I'm not a java coder, though I can program in a multitude of languages.
And you my young idiot can't seem to figure out what a shift key is for
and you are still playing games in clubhouses... How juvenile indeed.
--
Andrew DeFaria
Prejudices are what fools use for reason.

--------------010908020105060302010704
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit







Uri Guttman wrote:

cite="mid:x71w5iclzd.fsf@mail.sysarch.com" type="cite"> AD> Oh and
BTW all you need is a fucking shift key. You're a punk -

AD> admit it! A rebel for no good cause nor clue...



oh, i now see what i am. i owe you a great debt!! see if you can cash
it in.

cite="mid:x71w5iclzd.fsf@mail.sysarch.com" type="cite">AD> You keep
believing that bro as you apparently need it to have

AD> some semblance of

AD> self esteem. Personally at 6 AM I'm sleeping...



nah, you just need to know when you were punked. (see i must be a punk!)

cite="mid:x71w5iclzd.fsf@mail.sysarch.com" type="cite">AD> Hackers?
You mean as opposed to serious, professional programmers?

AD> Give me a fucking break!



haha. and your cpan id is?

cite="mid:x71w5iclzd.fsf@mail.sysarch.com" type="cite">if you
denigrate the term perl hacker, you are neither a perl coder nor a
hacker.

cite="mid:x71w5iclzd.fsf@mail.sysarch.com" type="cite"> sorry but you
are not allowed into the clubhouse.

cite="mid:x71w5iclzd.fsf@mail.sysarch.com" type="cite"> AD> you
seem to be contrarian with no actual defense of your

AD> position. oh well, off with your head!



AD> You should talk. Let's see you off my head there buddy. You can't

AD> even fucking quote right! My statement stands. Your tack is to us

AD> the buddy system of hackers. Hackers unite! We will take over the

AD> world, even though we can't get laid! I bow to the obvious

AD> superiority of such a position!



me quote right? emacs does it fine. the other poster has quoting
issues.

cite="mid:x71w5iclzd.fsf@mail.sysarch.com" type="cite"> AD> Still
spilling my beer from this fucking funny shit!



all over your nice perl code. how sweet. go back to coding in java
please.

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------040703040101020300050901
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Abigail wrote:
> _
> Gordon Etly (get@bentsys.com) wrote on VCCCXXXIII September MCMXCIII in
> :
> ||
> || This last quote is contradicted by the main Perl document, that gives
> || the "NAME" of the language as:
> ||
> || "perl - Practical Extraction and Report Language"
> ||
> || Which IS an acronym.
>
> No, it's not.
>
> The first line of a manual page is the name of the binary (not the
> language, the binary), followed by a one line description.
>
> Take for instance "man man":
>
> man - an interface to the on-line reference manuals
>
> Would you claim, "man" is an acronym of "an interface to the on-line
> reference manuals"? Of course not.
Well of course we would not - because "an interface to the on-line
reference manuals" does not contain the letters m, a and n as the first
letters of the main or important words in the phrase. That's how
acronyms work! Whereas "Practical Extraction and Report Language"
clearly does spell out P-E-R-L and we can tell that from the words
chosen and indeed even the capital letters used. Again, that's how
acronyms work!
> Just because the author of the manual page came up with an amusing line
> whose starting letters make up the name of the binary doesn't make the
> binary an acronym.
Who said the "binary" is an acronym? By definition the binary can't be.
The binary is a binary. Only words can be acronyms. The author clearly
meant it to be an acronym. Are you suggesting that he is wrong? Why
would we call his sincerity or facts into question? If we question those
should not we likewise then question the whole of the man page? Indeed,
if we do as you suggest then everything is suspect and unreliable,
including, I might add, your very own statements.
> The technical term for it (the *description*) is Acrostic.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acrostic
I see no evidence that this is the case here.
> || Or at the very least allows one to write "perl" or
> || "PERL" to abbreviate that.
>
> Well, if you want to abbreviate a one line description, feel free to do
> so, but then you could say "AITTORM" when you want to discuss man as well.
Sheer nonsense. You obviously have little grasp of English.
> Would you then also start to rant if people ask what the hell you mean?
Non sequiter.
> || Again, you just cannot ignore the main
> || document.
>
> No one is. But you're drawing unfounded conclusions.
That's your opinion. My opinion is that your conclusions here are
definitely unfounded.
--
Andrew DeFaria
Make it idiot proof and someone will make a better idiot.

--------------040703040101020300050901
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit







Abigail wrote:

cite="mid:slrnfvjqdt.pj.abigail@alexandra.abigail.be" type="cite"> _

Gordon Etly () wrote on VCCCXXXIII September MCMXCIII in

:

||

|| This last quote is contradicted by the main Perl document, that
gives

|| the "NAME" of the language as:

||

|| "perl - Practical Extraction and Report Language"

||

|| Which IS an acronym.



No, it's not.



The first line of a manual page is the name of the binary (not the

language, the binary), followed by a one line description.



Take for instance "man man":



man - an interface to the on-line reference manuals



Would you claim, "man" is an acronym of "an interface to the on-line

reference manuals"? Of course not.

cite="mid:slrnfvjqdt.pj.abigail@alexandra.abigail.be" type="cite">Just
because the author of the manual page came up with an amusing line

whose starting letters make up the name of the binary doesn't make the

binary an acronym.

cite="mid:slrnfvjqdt.pj.abigail@alexandra.abigail.be" type="cite">The
technical term for it (the *description*) is Acrostic.

cite="mid:slrnfvjqdt.pj.abigail@alexandra.abigail.be" type="cite">||
Or at the very least allows one to write "perl" or

|| "PERL" to abbreviate that.



Well, if you want to abbreviate a one line description, feel free to do


so, but then you could say "AITTORM" when you want to discuss man as
well.

cite="mid:slrnfvjqdt.pj.abigail@alexandra.abigail.be" type="cite">Would
you then also start to rant if people ask what the hell you mean?

cite="mid:slrnfvjqdt.pj.abigail@alexandra.abigail.be" type="cite">||
Again, you just cannot ignore the main

|| document.



No one is. But you're drawing unfounded conclusions.

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------090408080106060103050707
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) wrote:
>> Is that the RFC that requires all people to respect ASCII "art"? If
>> not then please explain. AFAICT this RFC is for TCP. How does TCP and
>> ASCII art relate?
> The FAQ is chock full of ASCII art which it uses to unambiguously
> describe how TCP works. Infact the ASCII art description is so
> unambigious and easy to read it is possable to create programs that
> parse the ASCII art and generate whole TCP/IP stacks based on them.
I'm still unimpressed. You mean an old, psychedelic 60's hippie who
could not do proper graphic art, and probably could not afford to hire a
pro, banged out what he considered to be cute pictures using just
letters and numbers and I'm supposed to be like "Wow, this should be in
the Louvre!".

I have no respect for ASCII art as an art form if you haven't guessed by
now (although there are indeed some real examples of real art done with
just ASCII, ain't none of them gonna be posted here). Truth is there is
no requirement anywhere to bestow respect on anything, let alone ASCII
art, simply because you wish it were so. Respect is always earned.

I have no problems with the RFC's content and understand it's an
important document. I would have even more respect for it if it were
more professionally done, however. YMMV.
--
Andrew DeFaria
A lady came up to me on the street, pointed at my suede jacket and said,
"Don't you know a cow was murdered for that jacket?" I said "I didn't
know there were any witnesses. Now I'll have to kill you too."

--------------090408080106060103050707
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit







David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) wrote:

cite="mid:slrnfvk6d7.b50.dformosa@localhost.localdomain" type="cite">

Is that the
RFC that requires all people to respect ASCII "art"? If not then please
explain. AFAICT this RFC is for TCP. How does TCP and ASCII art relate?

The FAQ is chock full of ASCII art which it uses to
unambiguously describe how TCP works. Infact the ASCII art description
is so unambigious and easy to read it is possable to create programs
that parse the ASCII art and generate whole TCP/IP stacks based on them.

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

_
Andrew DeFaria (Andrew@DeFaria.com) wrote on VCCCXXXIII September
MCMXCIII in :
)) The author clearly meant it to be an acronym. Are you suggesting
)) that he is wrong?


Marjorie: [ ... ] How'd you come up with that name?

Larry: I wanted a short name with positive connotations. (I would never
name a language "Scheme" or "Python", for instance.) I actually
looked at every three- and four-letter word in the dictionary and
rejected them all. I briefly toyed with the idea of naming it after
my wife, Gloria, but that promised to be confusing on the domestic
front. Eventually I came up with the name "pearl", with the gloss
Practical Extraction and Report Language. The "a" was still in
the name when I made that one up. But I heard rumors of some
obscure graphics language named "pearl", so I shortened it to
"perl". (The "a" had already disappeared by the time I gave Perl
its alternate gloss, Pathologically Eclectic Rubbish Lister.)

Another interesting tidbit is that the name "perl" wasn't
capitalized at first. UNIX was still very much a lower-case-only OS
at the time. In fact, I think you could call it an anti-upper-case
OS. It's a bit like the folks who start posting on the Net and
affect not to capitalize anything. Eventually, most of them come
back to the point where they realize occasional capitalization is
useful for efficient communication. In Perl's case, we realized
about the time of Perl 4 that it was useful to distinguish
between "perl" the program and "Perl" the language. If you find
a first edition of the Camel Book, you'll see that the title
was Programming perl, with a small "p". Nowadays, the title is
Programming Perl.


http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/3394



Abigail
--
sub A::TIESCALAR{bless\my$x=>'A'};package B;@q=qw/Hacker Perl
Another Just/;use overload'""',sub{pop @q};sub A::FETCH{bless
\my $y=>B};tie my$shoe=>'A';print"$shoe $shoe $shoe $shoe\n";

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

Abigail wrote:
> _
> Gordon Etly (get@bentsys.com) wrote on VCCCXXXIII September MCMXCIII
> in :
>>>
>>> This last quote is contradicted by the main Perl document, that
>>> gives the "NAME" of the language as:
>>>
>>> "perl - Practical Extraction and Report Language"
>>>
>>> Which IS an acronym.
>
> No, it's not.

I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. (Please see below.)

> The first line of a manual page is the name of the binary (not the
> language, the binary), followed by a one line description.
>
> Take for instance "man man":
>
> man - an interface to the on-line reference manuals
>
> Would you claim, "man" is an acronym of "an interface to the on-line
> reference manuals"? Of course not.


There is a huge difference here. It is not the same as,

"perl - Practical Extraction and Report Language",

which is written defining each letter in the word "perl", which is what
an acronym is. And notice how the NAME line in most man entries are
lowercase (except for proper nouns)?


>>> Or at the very least allows one to write
>>> "perl" or "PERL" to abbreviate that.
>
> Well, if you want to abbreviate a one line description

Ok, notice how the first letter of each word in the name line for 'man
perl' is capitalized, and how each of the capitalized letters
corresponds to a letter in the word "perl"? This is a common way for
defining an acronym. There really isn't anymore to it.

--
G.Etly

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

Abigail wrote:

> Just because the author of the manual page came up with an amusing
> line whose starting letters make up the name of the binary doesn't
> make the binary an acronym.

You do realize the document in question //ships// //with// Perl, right?
So it's not so much of a question of a random man-page author, but the
authors of Perldoc. Remember, the same pages are accessible via perldoc
and man, perldoc being the more official interface for the Perl
documentation, of course.

It's the very fact this document ships with Perl that validates the
usage of Perl/perl/PERL as an acronym.
_
> Andrew DeFaria (Andrew@DeFaria.com) wrote on VCCCXXXIII September
> MCMXCIII in :
> )) The author clearly meant it to be an acronym. Are you suggesting
> )) that he is wrong?
>
>
> Marjorie: [ ... ] How'd you come up with that name?
>
> Larry: I wanted a short name with positive connotations. (I would
> never name a language "Scheme" or "Python", for instance.) I
> actually looked at every three- and four-letter word in the
> dictionary and rejected them all. I briefly toyed with the idea
> of naming it after my wife, Gloria, but that promised to be
> confusing on the domestic front. Eventually I came up with the
> name "pearl", with the gloss Practical Extraction and Report
> Language. The "a" was still in the name when I made that one
> up. But I heard rumors of some obscure graphics language named
> "pearl", so I shortened it to "perl". (The "a" had already
> disappeared by the time I gave Perl its alternate gloss,
> Pathologically Eclectic Rubbish Lister.)
[...]

Yes, most everyone has seen this article a dozen times over, it doesn't
change the fact that the front line document that ships with Perl writes
it as an acronym definition. You just can't ignore this and at the same
time act as if the documentation Perl ships with means something.

Especially after this line from the above quote:

Eventually I came up with the name "pearl", with the
gloss Practical Extraction and Report Language.

I don't think it gets any more authoritative than coming from Larry
himself ;-)

--
G.Etly

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

"Gordon Etly" wrote in
news:65v00iF2i1cpsU1@mid.individual.net:

> Abigail wrote:
>> _
>> Gordon Etly (get@bentsys.com) wrote on VCCCXXXIII September
>> MCMXCIII in :
>>>>
>>>> This last quote is contradicted by the main Perl document,
>>>> that gives the "NAME" of the language as:
>>>>
>>>> "perl - Practical Extraction and Report Language"
>>>>
>>>> Which IS an acronym.
>>
>> No, it's not.
>
> I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. (Please see below.)

No he is not.

This is reminding me of a friend who used to pronounce doughnut
as duf-nut because he thought the '-ough' in both dough and
tough ought to sound the same.

He was able to advance many logical arguments why he was right,
but, alas, he was wrong.

The correct answer is the one adopted by native Perl
speakers whether you find that logical or not:

http://perldoc.perl.org/perlfaq1.html#What's-the-difference- between-%22perl%22-and-%22Perl%22%3f

Sinan

--
A. Sinan Unur <1usa@llenroc.ude.invalid>
(remove .invalid and reverse each component for email address)

comp.lang.perl.misc guidelines on the WWW:
http://www.rehabitation.com/clpmisc/

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

On 2008-04-06, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> --------------040600010503050101020008
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> John Bokma wrote:
>> Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>>> John Bokma wrote:
>>>> Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You might want to fix TB to post only in plain text instead of
>>>> attaching a HTML version as well.
>>
>>> Thanks but no thanks. There is nothing to "fix". This is by design.
>> You can turn it off in TB.
> What portion of "by design" are you having difficulty understanding?
> Perhaps I could help you out!

You are inconveniencing and irritating readers of the group by
design? That's a very odd design goal to have...

>> If you keep posting with HTML attachements, which have no place on
>> Usenet, you will notice that soon few people if at all will reply to
>> your posts.
> I've been doing so for years son and let me tell you - this has not been
> the case. Only pinheads who make arbitrary distinctions between a "Word"
> and a "word" tend to complain and eventually submit (because really, you

"word" is a syntactical element. "Word" is Microsoft product.

> have no other choice). So my design is having exactly the effect I had
> hoped for.

Ah, you *do* want to alienate readers of the group. To each his own,
I guess. I don't think getting in to as many killfiles as possible
was a very profitable goal, but whatever floats your boat.

>> [..]
>>
>>> I've given up even a casual interest in ASCII art I'd say back in the
>>> 70's son...
>> It shows.
> Indeed! It shows that I have a lot more taste than to admire ASCII
> "art". That's for geeks who have never quite graduated from DOS and
> who's only instrument of expression appears to be a single colored
> crayon. Did your mommy let you out to play today there John?
>> Anyway, ASCII art is now and then used in technical groups to
>> illustrate something.
> Yes, for those less creative people... I understand...



--
Christopher Mattern

NOTICE
Thank you for noticing this new notice
Your noticing it has been noted
And will be reported to the authorities

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

On 2008-04-07, Andrew DeFaria wrote:


Yes, you are a troll. Good-bye.


--
Christopher Mattern

NOTICE
Thank you for noticing this new notice
Your noticing it has been noted
And will be reported to the authorities

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

A. Sinan Unur wrote:
> "Gordon Etly" wrote in
> news:65v00iF2i1cpsU1@mid.individual.net:
>
>> Abigail wrote:
>>> _
>>> Gordon Etly (get@bentsys.com) wrote on VCCCXXXIII September
>>> MCMXCIII in :
>>>>>
>>>>> This last quote is contradicted by the main Perl document,
>>>>> that gives the "NAME" of the language as:
>>>>>
>>>>> "perl - Practical Extraction and Report Language"
>>>>>
>>>>> Which IS an acronym.
>>>
>>> No, it's not.
>>
>> I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. (Please see below.)
>
> No he is not.

The documentation disagrees with you both then.

> This is reminding me of a friend who used to pronounce doughnut
> as duf-nut because he thought the '-ough' in both dough and
> tough ought to sound the same.

Ok. But what does this have to do with how the

> He was able to advance many logical arguments why he was right,
> but, alas, he was wrong.
>
> The correct answer is the one adopted by native Perl
> speakers whether you find that logical or not:

Ok, nice analogy, but in this case, it's you who are in your friend's
position, arguing against the written authoritative documentation.
Perl's own _docs_ spell out an acronym, so please stop ignoring this.

> http://perldoc.perl.org/perlfaq1.html#What's-the-difference- between-%22perl%22-and-%22Perl%22%3f

You seem to have missed this part:

"You may or may not choose to follow this usage"


And,

"But never write "PERL", because perl is not an acronym",

is completely contrary to what 'perldoc perl' says:


http://perldoc.perl.org/perl.html

NAME
perl - Practical Extraction and Report Language

Which spells out a meaning for each letter, so hence, an acronym. Using
"perl" or "PERL" can denote such an acronym, so stop saying it's wrong
to use any of those forms.

That FAQ should be corrected because it is wrong. The main documentation
should always carry more weight than user-contributed content, should it
not?

Even Larry himself dubbed Perl as meaning what the NAME line says it is,
so why continue to push something that is proven wrong by both it's
top-most document and it's creator?

http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/3394

"Eventually I came up with the name "pearl", with the gloss
Practical Extraction and Report Language"

This is, by any definition, an acronym, spelled out in full. Given that
the 'a' was dropped, you get P-E-R-L out of it.

--
G.Etly

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 09:21:36 -0700, Gordon Etly wrote:

[...]

> There is a huge difference here. It is not the same as,
>
> "perl - Practical Extraction and Report Language",
>
> which is written defining each letter in the word "perl", which is what
> an acronym is.

Its also what a backronym is as well.

[...]

>> Well, if you want to abbreviate a one line description
>
> Ok, notice how the first letter of each word in the name line for 'man
> perl' is capitalized, and how each of the capitalized letters
> corresponds to a letter in the word "perl"? This is a common way for
> defining an acronym. There really isn't anymore to it.

So emacs is an acronym for Eight Megs And Constantly Swapping.

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

_
Gordon Etly (get@bentsys.com) wrote on VCCCXXXIII September MCMXCIII in
:
%%
%% Even Larry himself dubbed Perl as meaning what the NAME line says it is,
%% so why continue to push something that is proven wrong by both it's
%% top-most document and it's creator?
%%
%% http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/3394
%%
%% "Eventually I came up with the name "pearl", with the gloss
%% Practical Extraction and Report Language"
%%
%% This is, by any definition, an acronym, spelled out in full. Given that
%% the 'a' was dropped, you get P-E-R-L out of it.


No, it's not.

It would be an acronym if he came up with 'Practical Extraction and
Report Language' *FIRST*, then took the starting letters to make a word.

But he didn't. He came up with 'Pe(a)rl', and given that name, constructed
'Practical Extraction and Report Language'. Which makes the latter a derivate
of the first, making 'Practical Extraction and Report Language' an Acrostic
of 'Perl' (instead of Perl being an acronym).


Dodge doesn't become an acronym because someone came up with
'Darn Old Dirty Gas Eater'.



Abigail
--
perl -MTime::JulianDay -lwe'@r=reverse(M=>(0)x99=>CM=>(0)x399=>D=>(0)x99=>CD=>(
0)x299=>C=>(0)x9=>XC=>(0)x39=>L=>(0)x9=>XL=>(0)x29=>X=>IX=>0 =>0=>0=>V=>IV=>0=>0
=>I=>$==-2449231+gm_julian_day+time);do{until($=<$#r){$_.=$r[$#r];$=-=$#r}for(;
!$r[--$#r];){}}while$=;$,="\x20";print+$_=>September=>MCMXCI II=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>'

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

On 2008-04-07, David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) wrote:
>
> So emacs is an acronym for Eight Megs And Constantly Swapping.

Eight megabytes ought to be enough for anybody.

--keith


--
kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
see X- headers for PGP signature information

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

On 2008-04-07, David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) wrote:

>
> So emacs is an acronym for Eight Megs And Constantly Swapping.

I always liked Esc-Meta-Alt-Ctrl-Shift. Like emacs or hate it, you
can't deny the truth of that one.


--
Christopher Mattern

NOTICE
Thank you for noticing this new notice
Your noticing it has been noted
And will be reported to the authorities

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

Abigail wrote:
> _
> Gordon Etly (get@bentsys.com) wrote on VCCCXXXIII September MCMXCIII
> in :
> %%
> %% Even Larry himself dubbed Perl as meaning what the NAME line says
> it is, %% so why continue to push something that is proven wrong by
> both it's %% top-most document and it's creator?
> %%
> %% http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/3394
> %%
> %% "Eventually I came up with the name "pearl", with the gloss
> %% Practical Extraction and Report Language"
> %%
> %% This is, by any definition, an acronym, spelled out in full.
> Given that %% the 'a' was dropped, you get P-E-R-L out of it.
>
>
> No, it's not.
>
> It would be an acronym if he came up with 'Practical Extraction and
> Report Language' *FIRST*, then took the starting letters to make a
> word.

It doesn't matter which way it came about. The cold hard fact is that
the main document spells out a meaning for each letter and that's that.
Meaning-for-each-letter. That IS what an acronym is.

> Dodge doesn't become an acronym because someone came up with
> 'Darn Old Dirty Gas Eater'.

'Darn Old Dirty Gas Eater' is not defined in any of Dodge's official
documentation. Neither is "Fix Or Ropair Daily" in Ford's.

OTOH, "Practical Extraction and Report Language" IS defined in the
official documentation, and that is what makes a world of a difference.

--
G.Etly

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 09:21:36 -0700, Gordon Etly
> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> There is a huge difference here. It is not the same as,
>>
>> "perl - Practical Extraction and Report Language",
>>
>> which is written defining each letter in the word "perl", which is
>> what an acronym is.
>
> Its also what a backronym is as well.

Either way, the official documentation defines a meaning for each letter
in "perl", and that is the point.

> [...]
>
>>> Well, if you want to abbreviate a one line description
>>
>> Ok, notice how the first letter of each word in the name line for
>> 'man perl' is capitalized, and how each of the capitalized letters
>> corresponds to a letter in the word "perl"? This is a common way for
>> defining an acronym. There really isn't anymore to it.
>
> So emacs is an acronym for Eight Megs And Constantly Swapping.

No, the man page for "emacs" defines it as "emacs - GNU project Emacs",
while for perl (either via man or perldoc) defines it as "perl -
Practical Extraction and Report Language". The latter defines a meaning
for each letter, the former does not.

--
G.Etly

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

Chris Mattern wrote:
> On 2008-04-06, Pinocchio wrote:

[snip troll baiting and feeding]


> You are inconveniencing and irritating readers of the group by
> design? That's a very odd design goal to have...


But that is what trolls do.

This one has been in and out of here for years. It is sometimes
referred to as the Pinocchio or Jsut troll.

It changes addresses frequently, I have a couple dozen of them collected.

It nearly always appears as more than one poster in
contentious threads. It must manufacture support for its positions. :-)

It has a few blatant and repeating typographical and grammatical
slips that help to confirm a sighting of yet another new persona.



Go have a look at the history of this thread for example.

Note the major contributors. Consider which might be it.

I guarantee that this poster is not the only instance of
it appearing in this thread...


--
Tad McClellan
email: perl -le "print scalar reverse qq/moc.noitatibaher\100cmdat/"

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------070201040102000007030808
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Abigail wrote:
> _
> Andrew DeFaria (Andrew@DeFaria.com) wrote on VCCCXXXIII September
> MCMXCIII in :
> )) The author clearly meant it to be an acronym. Are you suggesting
> )) that he is wrong?
>
Are you purposely being obtuse? I mean the author of the man page... Geeze.
--
Andrew DeFaria
Who so loves believes the impossible. - Elizabeth Barrett Browning

--------------070201040102000007030808
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit







Abigail wrote:

cite="mid:slrnfvkgcq.98g.abigail@alexandra.abigail.be" type="cite"> _

Andrew DeFaria () wrote on VCCCXXXIII September

MCMXCIII in :

)) The author clearly meant it to be an acronym. Are you suggesting

)) that he is wrong?

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------040804000203050900030005
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

A. Sinan Unur wrote:
> This is reminding me of a friend who used to pronounce doughnut as
> duf-nut because he thought the '-ough' in both dough and tough ought
> to sound the same.
Funny. How about this:

If pro and con are opposites, is Congress the opposite of progress?"

English is the most widely used language in the history of our
planet. One in every seven human beings can speak it. More than half
of the world's books and three-quarters of international mail are in
English. Of all languages, English has the largest vocabulary -
perhaps as many as *two million* words - and one of the noblest
bodies of literature.

Nonetheless, let's face it: English is a crazy language. There is no
egg in eggplant, neither pine nor apple in pineapple and no ham in a
hamburger. English muffins weren't invented in England or french
fries in France. Sweetmeats are candy, while sweetbreads, which
aren't sweet, are meat.

We take English for granted. But when we explore its paradoxes, we
find that quicksand can work slowly, boxing rings are square, public
bathrooms have no baths and a guinea pig is neither a pig nor from
Guinea.

And why is it that a writer writes, but fingers don't fing, grocers
don't groce, humdingers don't hum and hammers don't ham? If the
plural of tooth is teeth, shouldn't the plural of booth be beeth?
One goose, two geese - so one moose, two meese? One index, two
indices - one Kleenex, two Kleenices?

Doesn't it seem loopy that you can make amends but not just one
amend, that you comb through the annals of history but not just one
anal? If you have a bunch of odds and ends and you get rid of all
but one, what do you call it?

If the teacher taught, why isn't it true that the preacher praught?
If a horsehair mat is made from the hair of horses and a
camel's-hair coat from the hair of camels, from what is a mohair
coat made? If a vegetarian eats vegetables, what does a humanitarian
eat? If you wrote a letter, perhaps you also bote your tongue?

Sometimes I wonder if all English speakers should be committed to an
asylum for the verbally insane. In what other language do people
drive on a parkway and park in a driveway? Recite at a play and play
at a recital? Ship by truck and send cargo by ship? Have noses that
run and feet that smell?

How can a slim chance and a fat chance be the same, while a wise man
and a wise guy are opposites? How can OVERLOOK and OVERSEE be
opposites, while *quite a lot* and *quite a few* are alike? How can
the weather be hot as hell one day and cold as hell the next?

Did you ever notice that we talk about certain things only when they
are absent? Have you ever seen a horseful carriage or a strapful
gown, met a sung hero or experienced requited love? Have you ever
run into someone who was combobulated, gruntled, ruly or peccable?

And where are the people who ARE spring chickens or who actually
*would* hurt a fly? I meet individuals who CAN cut the mustard and
whom I *would* touch with a ten-foot pole, but I cannot talk about
them in English.

You have to marvel at the unique lunacy of a language in which your
house can burn up as it burns down, in which you fill in a form by
filling it out and in which your alarm clock goes off by going on.

English was invented by people, not computers, and it reflects the
creativity of the human race (which, of course, isn't really a race
at all). That is why, when stars are out they are visible, but when
the lights are out they are invisible. Any why, when I wind up my
watch I start it, but when I wind up this essay I end it.

> He was able to advance many logical arguments why he was right, but,
> alas, he was wrong.
>
> The correct answer is the one adopted by native Perl speakers whether
> you find that logical or not:
>
> http://perldoc.perl.org/perlfaq1.html#What's-the-difference- between-%22perl%22-and-%22Perl%22%3f
>
> Sinan
Reasonable men can differ. Apparently you're not a reasonable man...
--
Andrew DeFaria
Artificial Intelligence usually beats real stupidity.

--------------040804000203050900030005
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit







A. Sinan Unur wrote:

cite="mid:Xns9A798D6745157asu1cornelledu@127.0.0.1" type="cite">This
is reminding me of a friend who used to pronounce doughnut as duf-nut
because he thought the '-ough' in both dough and tough ought to sound
the same.

If pro and con are opposites, is Congress
the opposite of progress?"

English is the most widely used language in the history of our
planet. One in every seven human beings can speak it. More than half of
the world's books and three-quarters of international mail are in
English. Of all languages, English has the largest vocabulary - perhaps
as many as two million words - and one of the noblest bodies of
literature.

Nonetheless, let's face it: English is a crazy language. There is
no egg in eggplant, neither pine nor apple in pineapple and no ham in a
hamburger. English muffins weren't invented in England or french fries
in France. Sweetmeats are candy, while sweetbreads, which aren't sweet,
are meat.

We take English for granted. But when we explore its paradoxes, we
find that quicksand can work slowly, boxing rings are square, public
bathrooms have no baths and a guinea pig is neither a pig nor from
Guinea.

And why is it that a writer writes, but fingers don't fing,
grocers don't groce, humdingers don't hum and hammers don't ham? If the
plural of tooth is teeth, shouldn't the plural of booth be beeth? One
goose, two geese - so one moose, two meese? One index, two indices -
one Kleenex, two Kleenices?

Doesn't it seem loopy that you can make amends but not just one
amend, that you comb through the annals of history but not just one
anal? If you have a bunch of odds and ends and you get rid of all but
one, what do you call it?

If the teacher taught, why isn't it true that the preacher
praught? If a horsehair mat is made from the hair of horses and a
camel's-hair coat from the hair of camels, from what is a mohair coat
made? If a vegetarian eats vegetables, what does a humanitarian eat? If
you wrote a letter, perhaps you also bote your tongue?

Sometimes I wonder if all English speakers should be committed to
an asylum for the verbally insane. In what other language do people
drive on a parkway and park in a driveway? Recite at a play and play at
a recital? Ship by truck and send cargo by ship? Have noses that run
and feet that smell?

How can a slim chance and a fat chance be the same, while a wise
man and a wise guy are opposites? How can OVERLOOK and OVERSEE be
opposites, while quite a lot and quite a few are alike?
How can the weather be hot as hell one day and cold as hell the next?

Did you ever notice that we talk about certain things only when
they are absent? Have you ever seen a horseful carriage or a strapful
gown, met a sung hero or experienced requited love? Have you ever run
into someone who was combobulated, gruntled, ruly or peccable?

And where are the people who ARE spring chickens or who actually would
hurt a fly? I meet individuals who CAN cut the mustard and whom I would
touch with a ten-foot pole, but I cannot talk about them in English.

You have to marvel at the unique lunacy of a language in which
your house can burn up as it burns down, in which you fill in a form by
filling it out and in which your alarm clock goes off by going on.

English was invented by people, not computers, and it reflects the
creativity of the human race (which, of course, isn't really a race at
all). That is why, when stars are out they are visible, but when the
lights are out they are invisible. Any why, when I wind up my watch I
start it, but when I wind up this essay I end it.

cite="mid:Xns9A798D6745157asu1cornelledu@127.0.0.1" type="cite">He was
able to advance many logical arguments why he was right, but, alas, he
was wrong.



The correct answer is the one adopted by native Perl speakers whether
you find that logical or not:







Sinan

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------020201030105010200010904
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Abigail wrote:
> No, it's not.
>
> It would be an acronym if he came up with 'Practical Extraction and
> Report Language' *FIRST*, then took the starting letters to make a word.
>
> But he didn't. He came up with 'Pe(a)rl', and given that name,
> constructed 'Practical Extraction and Report Language'. Which makes
> the latter a derivate of the first, making 'Practical Extraction and
> Report Language' an Acrostic of 'Perl' (instead of Perl being an acronym).
>
> Dodge doesn't become an acronym because someone came up with 'Darn Old
> Dirty Gas Eater'.
It certainly does to that someone - and indeed to others as well. One
need not ask for permission to think.
--
Andrew DeFaria
The nice thing about Standards is there are so many to choose from. -
Michael Santovec

--------------020201030105010200010904
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit







Abigail wrote:

cite="mid:slrnfvl04s.98g.abigail@alexandra.abigail.be" type="cite">No,
it's not.



It would be an acronym if he came up with 'Practical Extraction and
Report Language' *FIRST*, then took the starting letters to make a word.



But he didn't. He came up with 'Pe(a)rl', and given that name,
constructed 'Practical Extraction and Report Language'. Which makes the
latter a derivate of the first, making 'Practical Extraction and Report
Language' an Acrostic of 'Perl' (instead of Perl being an acronym).



Dodge doesn't become an acronym because someone came up with 'Darn Old
Dirty Gas Eater'.

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------000903060902080708030406
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) wrote:
> So emacs is an acronym for Eight Megs And Constantly Swapping.
It is to some people - though 8 megs is decidedly tiny given modern
systems....
--
Andrew DeFaria
11th commandment - Covet not thy neighbor's Pentium.

--------------000903060902080708030406
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit







David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) wrote:

cite="mid:slrnfvl0qa.b50.dformosa@localhost.localdomain" type="cite">So
emacs is an acronym for Eight Megs And Constantly Swapping.

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------060505060809080108040407
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Chris Mattern wrote:
> You are inconveniencing and irritating readers of the group by design?
Yes. Isn't it wonderful? :-D
> That's a very odd design goal to have...
Yes it's to get all the pricks and pinheads to killfile me so I don't
have to listen to their crap. Works wonders! I'm still waiting on you...
>>> If you keep posting with HTML attachements, which have no place on
>>> Usenet, you will notice that soon few people if at all will reply to
>>> your posts.
>> I've been doing so for years son and let me tell you - this has not
>> been the case. Only pinheads who make arbitrary distinctions between
>> a "Word" and a "word" tend to complain and eventually submit (because
>> really, you
> "word" is a syntactical element. "Word" is Microsoft product.
Ugh! What a moron! You did know that I just picked "word" as a word and
had no intentions nor designs to reflect on a product of MS? Or are you
naturally this anal retentive? Again, you must be a real pip at parties...
>> have no other choice). So my design is having exactly the effect I
>> had hoped for.
> Ah, you *do* want to alienate readers of the group.
Only the pinheads that wish to expend large amounts of their time and
resources preaching their preferences on everybody else... yes I wish to
alienate them... How am I doing?
> To each his own, I guess. I don't think getting in to as many
> killfiles as possible was a very profitable goal, but whatever floats
> your boat.
Do you think anybody posts to Usenet for profit? Man you are naive
aren't you. I don't post nor read here in the hopes of making money - I
make money elsewhere... Lots of it...
--
Andrew DeFaria
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.

--------------060505060809080108040407
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit







Chris Mattern wrote:

cite="mid:slrnfvkql6.1em.syscjm@sumire.gwu.edu" type="cite">You are
inconveniencing and irritating readers of the group by design?

cite="mid:slrnfvkql6.1em.syscjm@sumire.gwu.edu" type="cite"> That's a
very odd design goal to have...

cite="mid:slrnfvkql6.1em.syscjm@sumire.gwu.edu" type="cite">

If you keep
posting with HTML attachements, which have no place on Usenet, you will
notice that soon few people if at all will reply to your posts.

I've been doing so for years son and let me tell you - this has not
been the case. Only pinheads who make arbitrary distinctions between a
"Word" and a "word" tend to complain and eventually submit (because
really, you

"word" is a syntactical element. "Word" is Microsoft product.

cite="mid:slrnfvkql6.1em.syscjm@sumire.gwu.edu" type="cite">

have no other
choice). So my design is having exactly the effect I had hoped for.

Ah, you *do* want to alienate readers of the group.

cite="mid:slrnfvkql6.1em.syscjm@sumire.gwu.edu" type="cite"> To each
his own, I guess. I don't think getting in to as many killfiles as
possible was a very profitable goal, but whatever floats your boat.

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------000301000408020404000202
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Tad J McClellan wrote:
> This one has been in and out of here for years. It is sometimes
> referred to as the Pinocchio or Jsut troll.
Huh?
> It changes addresses frequently, I have a couple dozen of them collected.
Now sir you are being intellectually dishonest. I always, 100% of the
time, post with my real email address which is my real name. I have
nothing to hide. And I've been doing so since at least '96. You sir are
a bold faced liar. I challenge you to produce any evidence that I posted
here before with another identity. You will not because I have not.
Usually at that time an apology is in order but I know you're way too
intellectually bankrupt to offer one.
> It nearly always appears as more than one poster in contentious
> threads. It must manufacture support for its positions. :-)
>
> It has a few blatant and repeating typographical and grammatical slips
> that help to confirm a sighting of yet another new persona.
Huh? Of course your supposed algorithm for matching up typographical and
grammatical slips in order to track people must be brilliant and must be
in use at the NSA fer sure. The only problem is... You're dead wrong!
> Go have a look at the history of this thread for example.
>
> Note the major contributors. Consider which might be it.
>
> I guarantee that this poster is not the only instance of it appearing
> in this thread...
I guarantee you that any time you see my posts, they are mine. I'm real
and genuine and I don't hide - ever. Nor to I post with alternate
identities. You sir are just plain wrong and you will never produce any
evidence to the contrary because there is none.
--
Andrew DeFaria
If all the world is a stage, where is the audience sitting?

--------------000301000408020404000202
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit







Tad J McClellan wrote:

cite="mid:slrnfvld20.3c5.tadmc@tadmc30.sbcglobal.net" type="cite">This
one has been in and out of here for years. It is sometimes referred to
as the Pinocchio or Jsut troll.

cite="mid:slrnfvld20.3c5.tadmc@tadmc30.sbcglobal.net" type="cite">It
changes addresses frequently, I have a couple dozen of them collected.

cite="mid:slrnfvld20.3c5.tadmc@tadmc30.sbcglobal.net" type="cite">It
nearly always appears as more than one poster in contentious threads.
It must manufacture support for its positions. :-)



It has a few blatant and repeating typographical and grammatical slips
that help to confirm a sighting of yet another new persona.

cite="mid:slrnfvld20.3c5.tadmc@tadmc30.sbcglobal.net" type="cite">Go
have a look at the history of this thread for example.



Note the major contributors. Consider which might be it.



I guarantee that this poster is not the only instance of it appearing
in this thread...

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------090309020400020407070708
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Chris Mattern wrote:
> On 2008-04-07, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>
>
> Yes, you are a troll. Good-bye.
Thank heaven!
--
Andrew DeFaria
Sped up my XT; ran it on 220v! Works greO?_~"

--------------090309020400020407070708
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit







Chris Mattern wrote:

cite="mid:slrnfvkqou.1em.syscjm@sumire.gwu.edu" type="cite">On
2008-04-07, Andrew DeFaria wrote:

<meaningless flamebait snipped>



Yes, you are a troll. Good-bye. <plonk>

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 15:42:57 -0700, szr wrote:
> David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) wrote:
[...]
>> So emacs is an acronym for Eight Megs And Constantly Swapping.
>
> No, the man page for "emacs" defines it as "emacs - GNU project Emacs",
> while for perl (either via man or perldoc) defines it as "perl -
> Practical Extraction and Report Language".

But neather of those are definitions, there abstracts.

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 15:42:57 -0700, szr wrote:
> > David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) wrote:
> [...]
> > > So emacs is an acronym for Eight Megs And Constantly Swapping.
> >
> > No, the man page for "emacs" defines it as "emacs - GNU project
> > Emacs", while for perl (either via man or perldoc) defines it as
> > "perl - Practical Extraction and Report Language".
>
> But neather of those are definitions, there abstracts.

That may be, and perhaps definition was too strong a wording to describe
it, but it's still written as providing some sort of meaning for each
letter in Perl, in Perl's own documentation.

Giving a meaning for each letter results in an acronym, and using all
caps or all lowercase to describe an acronym that has no explicit mixed
case should be fair game, should it not?

There for the FAQ that says not to use "PERL" should be corrected imho,
as it is perfectly reasonable to use it as "perl" or "PERL" when
referring to it as an acronym.

--
G.Etly

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 19:10:43 -0700 Andrew DeFaria wrote:

AD> Man you are naive aren't you. I don't post nor read here in the
AD> hopes of making money - I make money elsewhere... Lots of it...

I just wanted to mention that I love how you've managed to pull so many
classic troll tricks, including the money gambit. Very nice.

Ted

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

Gordon Etly wrote:
> David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) wrote:
>> On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 15:42:57 -0700, szr wrote:
>> > David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) wrote:
>> [...]
>> > > So emacs is an acronym for Eight Megs And Constantly Swapping.
>> >
>> > No, the man page for "emacs" defines it as "emacs - GNU project
>> > Emacs", while for perl (either via man or perldoc) defines it as
>> > "perl - Practical Extraction and Report Language".
>>
>> But neather of those are definitions, there abstracts.
>
> That may be, and perhaps definition was too strong a wording to describe
> it, but it's still written as providing some sort of meaning for each
> letter in Perl, in Perl's own documentation.
>
> Giving a meaning for each letter results in an acronym, and using all
> caps or all lowercase to describe an acronym that has no explicit mixed
> case should be fair game, should it not?
>
> There for


That was unfortunate...


> the FAQ that says not to use "PERL" should be corrected imho,


It could be corrected from:

But never write "PERL", because perl is not an acronym,
apocryphal folklore and post-facto expansions notwithstanding.

to something like:

But never write "PERL", because perl is not an acronym,
and you will look silly if you spell it like that.


> as it is perfectly reasonable to use it as "perl" or "PERL" when
> referring to it as an acronym.


Whether it is right or wrong, documented or not does not matter
much with regard to whether to write "PERL" or not.

Why do people apply a stigma to those who use it?

From their *observed experience*.

There is a strong correlation between spelling it that way and
being a post that I would rather skip reading.

Q: Is that right?
A: Doesn't matter, because the heuristic *works* whether right or wrong.




So, how can we make it OK to spell it PERL?

Simply change the observed experience so that it is no longer effective.

ie. impart clue by pointing out that it is not spelled "PERL".

When "PERL" and "I want to skip this one" are no longer related,
then people will stop depending on the information that those
rules of thumb currently provide to us.


--
Tad McClellan
email: perl -le "print scalar reverse qq/moc.noitatibaher\100cmdat/"

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------080205020104030606070807
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Ted Zlatanov wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 19:10:43 -0700 Andrew DeFaria
> wrote:
>
> AD> Man you are naive aren't you. I don't post nor read here in the
> AD> hopes of making money - I make money elsewhere... Lots of it...
>
> I just wanted to mention that I love how you've managed to pull so
> many classic troll tricks, including the money gambit. Very nice.
I'm glad you're having fun in your imaginary world. Tell me - do they
let you out often? Without your meds even? Oh and also, is posting here
a money making venture for you? I thought not...
--
Andrew DeFaria
A flying saucer results when a nudist spills his coffee.

--------------080205020104030606070807
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit







Ted Zlatanov wrote:

cite="mid:86y77o8h2f.fsf@lifelogs.com" type="cite">On Mon, 07 Apr 2008
19:10:43 -0700 Andrew DeFaria wrote:



AD> Man you are naive aren't you. I don't post nor read here in the

AD> hopes of making money - I make money elsewhere... Lots of it...



I just wanted to mention that I love how you've managed to pull so many
classic troll tricks, including the money gambit. Very nice.

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

Tad J McClellan wrote:
> Gordon Etly wrote:

>> as it is perfectly reasonable to use it as "perl" or "PERL" when
>> referring to it as an acronym.
>
> Whether it is right or wrong, documented or not does not matter
> much with regard to whether to write "PERL" or not.

How can it suddenly not matter what the documentation that coems with
Perl says?!? I says

How does giving "Practical Extraction and Report Language" as a
definition for "perl" not an acronym, and how does that not make using
PERL perfectly acceptable?

It appears to me that most of you who are so bent against the usage of
"PERL" are missing or just plain ignoring 'perldoc perl' and looking for
any excuse, any technicality, anything at all it seems in effort to
refute the claims, all of which are contrary to what Perl's own
documentation.

Is it that you don't like being challenged about something you hold so
dear and just cannot accept that there may be another perspective to it?
Are you so inflexible you cannot even acknowledge the validity of this
view? It wont kill ya' to look at a different point of view, ya' know :)

I full-heartedly believe that that FAQ is contradicted by 'perldoc perl'
and that it should be corrected.

--
G.Etly

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

On 2008-04-09, Gordon Etly wrote:
>
> I full-heartedly believe that that FAQ is contradicted by 'perldoc perl'
> and that it should be corrected.

If you believe this, compose a patch and submit it to the FAQ maintainer.

Personally, I don't write PERL just because it looks stupid, but I don't
care what other people write, as long as they don't post something like

"Why doesn't this work?

% PERL myperl.pl
-bash: PERL: command not found

Help!"

OTOH, I find it difficult to support your claim that perldoc perl
contradicts the FAQ, especially since perldoc perl calls it "Perl"
throughout.

--keith


--
kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
see X- headers for PGP signature information

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------010805010603090602090008
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Gordon Etly wrote:
> Tad J McClellan wrote:
>> Gordon Etly wrote:
>
>>> as it is perfectly reasonable to use it as "perl" or "PERL" when
>>> referring to it as an acronym.
>> Whether it is right or wrong, documented or not does not matter
>> much with regard to whether to write "PERL" or not.
>
> How can it suddenly not matter what the documentation that coems with
> Perl says?!? I says
>
> How does giving "Practical Extraction and Report Language" as a
> definition for "perl" not an acronym, and how does that not make using
> PERL perfectly acceptable?
Gordon, you're talking sense. They don't want to hear it. In order to
hear it would require that they admit they are wrong. They are not
willing to do that. This is all the definition of a pinhead.
--
Andrew DeFaria
I'd explain it to you, but your brain would explode.

--------------010805010603090602090008
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit







Gordon Etly wrote:

cite="mid:662sorF2i6k5fU1@mid.individual.net" type="cite">Tad J
McClellan wrote:

Gordon Etly
wrote:

as it is
perfectly reasonable to use it as "perl" or "PERL" when

referring to it as an acronym.

Whether it is right or wrong, documented or not does not matter

much with regard to whether to write "PERL" or not.

How can it suddenly not matter what the documentation that coems with 
Perl says?!? I says



How does giving "Practical Extraction and Report Language" as a
definition for "perl" not an acronym, and how does that not make using
PERL perfectly acceptable?

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

Keith Keller wrote:
> On 2008-04-09, Gordon Etly wrote:
>>
>> I full-heartedly believe that that FAQ is contradicted by 'perldoc
>> perl' and that it should be corrected.
>
> If you believe this, compose a patch and submit it to the FAQ
> maintainer.

I will consider doing that. Thank you.

> Personally, I don't write PERL just because it looks stupid,

What makes it so stupid? perldoc gives a meaning for each letter in
"perl", and "PERL" is just another way to write that.


$ perldoc perl | head -6 | tail -2

NAME
perl - Practical Extraction and Report Language



And this meaning is widely known (here is just one of about a dozen
different acronym sites:)

acronymfinder.com/acronym.aspx?rec={9929633B-89E8-11D4-8351- 00C04FC2C2BF}

What does PERL stand for?

Practical Extraction and Report Language


> but I don't care what other people write, as long as they don't
> post something like
>
> "Why doesn't this work?
>
> % PERL myperl.pl
> -bash: PERL: command not found
> Help!"

This is not what is being discussed. This is incorrectly typing the name
of a program in your search path. It's no different than if one typed
BASH instead of bash or LS instead of ls. <[1]>

What //is// being discussed is that the use of "PERL" in general instead
of it always being shot down. Seeing as the official documentation
states a meaning for each latter, it should be fair game to use "perl"
or "PERL" as an acronym, and anyone who reads 'perldoc perl'/'man perl'.

At the very least those saying one who uses "PERL" to refer to the
language displays ignorance could be very wrong, as one who uses it to
refer to the language could just be following what they've read on the
first page of the documentation.


> OTOH, I find it difficult to support your claim that perldoc perl
> contradicts the FAQ, especially since perldoc perl calls it "Perl"
> throughout.

It may use Perl throhhgout, but again, at the very beginning:

$ perldoc perl | head -6 | tail -2

NAME
perl - Practical Extraction and Report Language


The NAME line uses "perl" and gives //a// meaning for each letter, each
one capitalized. This alone should make using "PERL" perfectly valid.
Yes, it has been tradition //not// to use "PERL" but just because
something is tradition doesn't mean it's infallible and that it can't be
looked at in another way. That is all I'm trying to do here.


<[1]> That specific example uses bash (and implies some sort of UNIX
based environment), though systems where case does not matter, such as
on Windows and MS-DOS, "PERL myperl.pl" works just fine. Even under bash
via cygwin.

The filename of the Perl binary itself is lowercase in such systems,
though in some file systems where everything is always uppercase (like
in pure MS-DOS), then the binary would be PERL. This is also true for
CD's burned in certain formats.


--
G.Etly

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

Gordon Etly wrote:
> It appears to me that most of you who are so bent against the usage of
> "PERL" are missing or just plain ignoring 'perldoc perl'

perldoc perl
NAME
perl - Practical Extraction and Report Language

SYNOPSIS
perl ...

If you're new to Perl, ...


I note that perldoc perl does NOT say
NAME
PERL - Practical Extraction and Report Language

SYNOPSIS
PERL ...

If you're new to PERL, ...


QED

--
RGB

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

RedGrittyBrick wrote:
> Gordon Etly wrote:
>> It appears to me that most of you who are so bent against the usage
>> of "PERL" are missing or just plain ignoring 'perldoc perl'
>
> perldoc perl
> NAME
> perl - Practical Extraction and Report Language
>
> SYNOPSIS
> perl ...
>
> If you're new to Perl, ...
>
>
> I note that perldoc perl does NOT say
> NAME
> PERL - Practical Extraction and Report Language
>
> SYNOPSIS
> PERL ...
>
> If you're new to PERL, ...

It also does not say "Perl" in the NAME line, but "perl". "PERL" comes
from the abbreviating of "Practical Extraction and Report Language"...
and why it shouldn't be a problem to use "PERL".

--
G.Etly

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

Gordon Etly wrote:
> RedGrittyBrick wrote:
>> Gordon Etly wrote:
>>> It appears to me that most of you who are so bent against the usage
>>> of "PERL" are missing or just plain ignoring 'perldoc perl'
>> perldoc perl
>> NAME
>> perl - Practical Extraction and Report Language
>>
>> SYNOPSIS
>> perl ...
>>
>> If you're new to Perl, ...
>>
>>
>> I note that perldoc perl does NOT say
>> NAME
>> PERL - Practical Extraction and Report Language
>>
>> SYNOPSIS
>> PERL ...
>>
>> If you're new to PERL, ...
>
> It also does not say "Perl" in the NAME line, but "perl". "PERL" comes
> from the abbreviating of "Practical Extraction and Report Language"...

As you know, there is a difference between an abbreviation and an
acronym. I'm guessing you don't actually pronounce PERL as an abbreviation.

See also mention of PERL in
http://wordsmith.org/words/backronym.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backronym


> and why it shouldn't be a problem to use "PERL".

AFAIK the capitalised PERL appears nowhere in the documentation. Other
than where Perlfaq -q differences says not to use PERL. None of my Perl
books use PERL. Larry wall doesn't use PERL. That's enough for me.

The only problem would be if you care about occasionally being mistaken
for an ignorant beginner or for someone who enjoys being deliberately
perverse ;-)

--
RGB

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

RedGrittyBrick wrote:
> Gordon Etly wrote:
>> RedGrittyBrick wrote:
>>> Gordon Etly wrote:
>>>> It appears to me that most of you who are so bent against the usage
>>>> of "PERL" are missing or just plain ignoring 'perldoc perl'
>>> perldoc perl
>>> NAME
>>> perl - Practical Extraction and Report Language
>>>
>>> SYNOPSIS
>>> perl ...
>>>
>>> If you're new to Perl, ...
>>>
>>>
>>> I note that perldoc perl does NOT say
>>> NAME
>>> PERL - Practical Extraction and Report Language
>>>
>>> SYNOPSIS
>>> PERL ...
>>>
>>> If you're new to PERL, ...
>>
>> It also does not say "Perl" in the NAME line, but "perl". "PERL"
>> comes from the abbreviating of "Practical Extraction and Report
>> Language"...
>
> As you know, there is a difference between an abbreviation and an
> acronym. I'm guessing you don't actually pronounce PERL as an
> abbreviation.
> See also mention of PERL in
> http://wordsmith.org/words/backronym.html
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backronym

This is all just a technicality that misses the point, which is the
//official documentation// gives a definition for PERL. The point is,
since the //official documentation// give it, it should be fine to use
PERL.

>> and why it shouldn't be a problem to use "PERL".
>
> AFAIK the capitalised PERL appears nowhere in the documentation. Other
> than where Perlfaq -q differences says not to use PERL. None of my
> Perl books use PERL. Larry wall doesn't use PERL. That's enough for
> me.

The //official documentation// defines PERL as being "Practical
Extraction and Report Language", and therefore should be acceptable.
Even Larry Wall gave "Practical Extraction and Report Language" as a
definition, and another (though I think we can all agree the other one
was more in jest.) No, it's not an official definition, but it appears
in the //official documentation// and that's enough for me.


> The only problem would be if you care about occasionally being
> mistaken for an ignorant beginner or for someone who enjoys being
> deliberately perverse ;-)

It's just as arguable that those accusing people of being ignorant are
themselves ignorant of the //official documentation// ;-)

--
G.Etly

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

At 2008-04-10 11:02AM, "Gordon Etly" wrote:
> It's just as arguable that those accusing people of being ignorant are
> themselves ignorant of the //official documentation// ;-)

Note that the perldocs are also //official documentation//, and you can
see that the //official documentation// (perldoc -q difference) says
'never write "PERL", because perl isn't really an acronym'.

--
Glenn Jackman
"If there is anything the nonconformist hates worse than a conformist,
it's another nonconformist who doesn't conform to the prevailing
standard of nonconformity." -- Bill Vaughan

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------010608000904070105090806
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Glenn Jackman wrote:
> At 2008-04-10 11:02AM, "Gordon Etly" wrote:
>> It's just as arguable that those accusing people of being ignorant
>> are themselves ignorant of the //official documentation// ;-)
> Note that the perldocs are also //official documentation//, and you
> can see that the //official documentation// (perldoc -q difference)
> says 'never write "PERL", because perl isn't really an acronym'.
What does this tell you? Well it tells most intelligent, logical and
social human beings that reasonable people can reasonably have different
opinions on the matter. Now, of course, if we could just get you people
to be reasonable and not have to beat up on others who differ on the
subject...
--
Andrew DeFaria
The other day I was playing poker with Tarot cards. I got a full house
and four people died.

--------------010608000904070105090806
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit






Glenn Jackman wrote:

cite="mid:slrnfvsc4n.2p6.glennj@smeagol.ncf.ca" type="cite">At
2008-04-10 11:02AM, "Gordon Etly" wrote:

It's just as
arguable that those accusing people of being ignorant are themselves
ignorant of the //official documentation// ;-)

Note that the perldocs are also //official documentation//, and
you can see that the //official documentation// (perldoc -q difference)
says 'never write "PERL", because perl isn't really an acronym'.

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

Gordon Etly wrote:
>
> The //official documentation// defines PERL as being "Practical
> Extraction and Report Language",

That definition in full:
"perl - Practical Extraction and Report Language"

The //official documentation// says 'never write "PERL"'

--
RGB

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

Glenn Jackman wrote:
> At 2008-04-10 11:02AM, "Gordon Etly" wrote:
>> It's just as arguable that those accusing people of being ignorant
>> are themselves ignorant of the //official documentation// ;-)
>
> Note that the perldocs are also //official documentation//, and you
> can see that the //official documentation// (perldoc -q difference)
> says 'never write "PERL", because perl isn't really an acronym'.

Then the "difference" and the previous mentioned FAQ should be
mentioned, because the main document gives "Practical Extraction and
Report Language", which can be condensed to just "PERL". It's in the
main document so why have other documents that are contrary to it?

--
G.Etly

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

RedGrittyBrick wrote:
> Gordon Etly wrote:
>>
>> The //official documentation// defines PERL as being "Practical
>> Extraction and Report Language",
>
> That definition in full:
> "perl - Practical Extraction and Report Language"
>
> The //official documentation// says 'never write "PERL"'

It does not explicitly, I never claimed otherwise. It does write it
implicitly, as "Practical Extraction and Report Language", which can be
condensed into "PERL".

--
Etly

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

Gordon Etly wrote:
> RedGrittyBrick wrote:
>> Gordon Etly wrote:
>>>
>>> The //official documentation// defines PERL as being "Practical
>>> Extraction and Report Language",
>>
>> That definition in full:
>> "perl - Practical Extraction and Report Language"
>>
>> The //official documentation// says 'never write "PERL"'
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> It does not explicitly,


Yes it does.

The docs snippet that says those exact words has already
been posted in this thread.


--
Tad McClellan
email: perl -le "print scalar reverse qq/moc.noitatibaher\100cmdat/"

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

>>>>> "Gordon" == Gordon Etly writes:

Gordon> Then the "difference" and the previous mentioned FAQ should be
Gordon> mentioned, because the main document gives "Practical Extraction and
Gordon> Report Language", which can be condensed to just "PERL". It's in the
Gordon> main document so why have other documents that are contrary to it?

"man cat" =>

NAME
cat - concatenate and print files

Does that mean I should say that "cat" is really "CAPF"?

By that logic, there ya go.

--
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095

Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training!

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
>>>>>> "Gordon" == Gordon Etly writes:
>
> Gordon> Then the "difference" and the previous mentioned FAQ should be
> Gordon> amended, because the main document gives "Practical
> Extraction and Report Language", which can be condensed to
> just "PERL". It's in the Gordon> main document so why have other
> documents that are contrary to it?
>
> "man cat" =>
>
> NAME
> cat - concatenate and print files
>
> Does that mean I should say that "cat" is really "CAPF"?
>
> By that logic, there ya go.

With all due respect, your logic is flawed (which I admit is rare.)

"concatenate and print files" is not written the same way as "Practical
Extraction and Report Language"... 1) the former is all lowercase, the
latter has capitalized letters, which yield PERL when put together. The
NAME line for 'man perl' (or 'perldoc perl') clearly defines PERL in
expanded form. The man for 'cat' does not.

I mean, would it be a stretch to say, "I just wrote a Practical
Extraction and Report Language program!" ? If that is valid, then why
wouldn't, "I just wrote a PERL program!" ? Yes, it would be more correct
to write "Perl" instead, but it should not be //wrong// to write "PERL"
(as an acronym for the definition given by Perl's own documentation.)

--
G.Etly

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

Tad J McClellan wrote:
> Gordon Etly wrote:
>> RedGrittyBrick wrote:
>>> Gordon Etly wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The //official documentation// defines PERL as being "Practical
>>>> Extraction and Report Language",
>>>
>>> That definition in full:
>>> "perl - Practical Extraction and Report Language"
>>>
>>> The //official documentation// says 'never write "PERL"'
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> It does not explicitly,
>
>
> Yes it does.
>
> The docs snippet that says those exact words has already
> been posted in this

--
G.Etly

Re: perl should be improved and perl6

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------080808070904010407080203
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
> Gordon> Then the "difference" and the previous mentioned FAQ should be
> Gordon> mentioned, because the main document gives "Practical
> Extraction and
> Gordon> Report Language", which can be condensed to just "PERL". It's
> in the
> Gordon> main document so why have other documents that are contrary to it?
>
> "man cat" =>
>
> NAME
> cat - concatenate and print files
>
> Does that mean I should say that "cat" is really "CAPF"?
>
> By that logic, there ya go.
Not at all. The logic, Randall, is that an acronym is spelled out into
words by capitalizing the first letter of important words. You know
that. They taught you that in elementary school fer crying out loud! So
it's clear when it says "Practical Extraction and Reporting Language"
there is a specific reason why the P-E-R and L were intentionally
capitalized and the "a" in and was specifically and also intentionally
not capitalized. What was meant was clearly "I'm capitalizing the P-E-R
and L because I want it to reflect that those are the same characters as
are in the acronym PERL and I am specifically not capitalizing the 'a'
in and precisely because it's not letter in PERL". Your example above
of "concatenate and print files" has 0, zip, nada, capital letters at
all and they doesn't apply at all!

Stated differently, if you considered PERL to be an acronym, wouldn't
you naturally write "Practical Extraction and Reporting Language"?!?

And don't play dumb like you don't know this.
--
Andrew DeFaria
The trouble with doing something right the first time is that nobody
appreciates how difficult it was.

--------------080808070904010407080203
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit






Randal L. Schwartz wrote: