perl standard
Wade Ward
Usually they have the full standard available for $250 and a treatment of
the standard that's good enough for learners that costs nada. I'm
interested in the latter. Does anyone know of such a document?
TIA,
--
wade ward
"Nicht verzagen, Bruder Grinde fragen."
Michele Dondi
wrote:
>I'm far enough along in Perl now that I'd like to lay eyes on the Standard.
>
>Usually they have the full standard available for $250 and a treatment of
>the standard that's good enough for learners that costs nada. I'm
>interested in the latter. Does anyone know of such a document?
Huh?!? Perl unlike other languages is defined by its own
implementation. At least in 5's realms. Get used to it. Just refer to
the docs that came with your perl.
Michele
--
{$_=pack'B8'x25,unpack'A8'x32,$a^=sub{pop^pop}->(map substr
(($a||=join'',map--$|x$_,(unpack'w',unpack'u','G^<R<Y]*YB='
.'KYU;*EVH[.FHF2W+#"\Z*5TI/ER<Z`S(G.DZZ9OX0Z')=~/./g)x2,$_,
256),7,249);s/[^\w,]/ /g;$ \=/^J/?$/:"\r";print,redo}#JAPH,
Keith Keller
> I'm far enough along in Perl now that I'd like to lay eyes on the Standard.
>
> Usually they have the full standard available for $250 and a treatment of
> the standard that's good enough for learners that costs nada. I'm
> interested in the latter. Does anyone know of such a document?
The full standard is the official source code. The standard beginner's
text is the Llama, _Learning Perl_; a shorter intro is in
perldoc perlintro. The standard documentation is that which comes with
Perl and/or the Camel, _Programming Perl_.
--keith
--
kkeller...@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
benkasmi...@gmail.com
> Perl unlike other languages is defined by its own
> implementation. At least in 5's realms. Get used to it. Just refer to
> the docs that came with your perl.
Logically speaking, if you accept that Perl is defined by its
implementation, then you also accept that there is no such thing as a
bug in Perl. If Perl does something crazy or unexpected, then since
Perl is "defined by its implementation", the bizarre behaviour is not
a bug, it is the correct behaviour of Perl, at least as far as the
language is "defined by its implementation". Also you have to accept
that the documentation is wrong if it says something different from
what Perl actually does. So if Perl exhibits some bug then the
documentation should be considered incorrect, not Perl.
Paul Lalli
> I'm far enough along in Perl now that I'd like to lay eyes on
> the Standard.
>
> Usually they have the full standard available for $250
Who is this "they" of whom you speak? There is no such entity.
There's Larry. What he says Perl should do is as close to an official
"standard" as you're ever going to find. (See also: "The Rules",
`perldoc perlhack`)
Paul Lalli
Ben Morrow
Wade Ward
"Paul Lalli" <mri...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1192754482....@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
They is ISO. I would have a hard time believing that the entire body of
international standards chose to overlook perl, particularly when I've
already heard the document described.
perldoc perlhack is a %100 wrong answer.
Abigail
Wade Ward (zax...@invalid.net) wrote on VCLXII September MCMXCIII in
<URL:news:eo2dnaMhQteF-oXa...@comcast.com>:
##
##
## "Paul Lalli" <mri...@gmail.com> wrote in message
## news:1192754482....@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
## > On Oct 18, 7:24 pm, "Wade Ward" <zaxf...@invalid.net> wrote:
## >> I'm far enough along in Perl now that I'd like to lay eyes on
## >> the Standard.
## >>
## >> Usually they have the full standard available for $250
## >
## > Who is this "they" of whom you speak? There is no such entity.
## > There's Larry. What he says Perl should do is as close to an official
## > "standard" as you're ever going to find. (See also: "The Rules",
## > `perldoc perlhack`)
## They is ISO. I would have a hard time believing that the entire body of
## international standards chose to overlook perl, particularly when I've
## already heard the document described.
You think it's more believable that a well known standards body goes off
to standardize Perl, and not tell anyone involved with Perl development
about it?
What do you think ISO is? A bunch of people picking a random subject
every Monday morning that they will standardize this week?
But hey, if you find someone that's willing to give you a "Perl standard"
in exchange for $250, and you're happy with it, go for it. It's a win-win
situation.
## perldoc perlhack is a %100 wrong answer.
Right, it's only a document written by the people who develop [Pp]erl
on how [Pp]erl is being developed. What would they know? Besides, perlhack
is free, so it must be full of lies. Only if you pay $250 you get a document
you can rely on.
Abigail
--
echo "==== ======= ==== ======"|perl -pes/=/J/|perl -pes/==/us/|perl -pes/=/t/\
|perl -pes/=/A/|perl -pes/=/n/|perl -pes/=/o/|perl -pes/==/th/|perl -pes/=/e/\
|perl -pes/=/r/|perl -pes/=/P/|perl -pes/=/e/|perl -pes/==/rl/|perl -pes/=/H/\
|perl -pes/=/a/|perl -pes/=/c/|perl -pes/=/k/|perl -pes/==/er/|perl -pes/=/./;
Dr.Ruud
> Michele Dondi:
No. The documentation is an important part of the implementation. So is
CPAN, for example all the testcode of the serious modules.
--
Affijn, Ruud
"Gewoon is een tijger."
Joachim Durchholz
semantics. Since Perl is a single-implementation language, there is no
need for a standard.
Regards,
Jo
Abigail
Joachim Durchholz (j...@durchholz.org) wrote on VCLXII September MCMXCIII
in <URL:news:ff9upn$tr1$2...@online.de>:
:} A standard serves to make the implementations converge on a common
:} need for a standard.
Well, there's more to be said about the merits of a standard than
just dismissing it with "there's just one implementation".
Read the O'Reilly interview [1] with Larry Rosler (a former clpm poster)
for instance. I don't necessarely agree with his conclusion, but he
makes some interesting arguments.
[1] http://www.perl.com/pub/a/2000/06/rosler.html
Abigail
--
split // => '"';
${"@_"} = "/"; split // => eval join "+" => 1 .. 7;
*{"@_"} = sub {foreach (sort keys %_) {print "$_ $_{$_} "}};
%{"@_"} = %_ = (Just => another => Perl => Hacker); &{%{%_}};
Paul Lalli
> They is ISO. I would have a hard time believing that the entire
> body of international standards chose to overlook perl,
> particularly when I've already heard the document described.
>
> perldoc perlhack is a %100 wrong answer.
The levels of stupidity you exhibited in this response is truly
shocking.
Please, go find someone who will sell you an "ISO Certified Standard"
Perl for $250. I'm sure you'll be very happy with your purchase.
Then let us know if there's anything else you'd like to purchase. I
hear there's a bridge for sale in Brooklyn.
Paul Lalli
Josef Moellers
Cool down.
I guess what Wade meant was that in other realms, "they" (I'll have to
be careful, as they are after me ;-) charge you muchas dollars for a
copy of some standard, e.g. ISO will charge you, if you'd like to have
some of their standards for reference. IIRC that's they way they make
some of their money.
--
These are my personal views and not those of Fujitsu Siemens Computers!
Josef Möllers (Pinguinpfleger bei FSC)
If failure had no penalty success would not be a prize (T. Pratchett)
Company Details: http://www.fujitsu-siemens.com/imprint.html
Joachim Durchholz
> _
> I don't necessarely agree with his conclusion, but he
> makes some interesting arguments.
>
> [1] http://www.perl.com/pub/a/2000/06/rosler.html
I see just one argument: that large bodies (corporations, governments)
won't use a language that's not standardized.
Did I overlook something?
Regards,
Jo
Michele Dondi
>Logically speaking, if you accept that Perl is defined by its
>implementation, then you also accept that there is no such thing as a
>bug in Perl. If Perl does something crazy or unexpected, then since
>Perl is "defined by its implementation", the bizarre behaviour is not
>a bug, it is the correct behaviour of Perl, at least as far as the
>language is "defined by its implementation". Also you have to accept
>that the documentation is wrong if it says something different from
>what Perl actually does. So if Perl exhibits some bug then the
>documentation should be considered incorrect, not Perl.
Strictly speaking I suspect that you'd be right, but with
"implementation" I meant everything that comes with an implemented
Perl, the documentation being part of that.
Michele Dondi
wrote:
>Who is this "they" of whom you speak? There is no such entity.
>There's Larry. What he says Perl should do is as close to an official
>"standard" as you're ever going to find. (See also: "The Rules",
>`perldoc perlhack`)
And following him in order of importance, the other @Larrys. :)
Michele Dondi
wrote:
>They is ISO. I would have a hard time believing that the entire body of
>international standards chose to overlook perl, particularly when I've
perldoc -q ansi
: Found in C:\Programmi\Perl\lib\pod\perlfaq2.pod
: Is there an ISO or ANSI certified version of Perl?
: Certainly not. Larry expects that he'll be certified before Perl is.
>already heard the document described.
"Heard"? Somebody told me about "chemical trails", I've already heard
about them. Thus it must be true...
>perldoc perlhack is a %100 wrong answer.
Huh?!? What's wrong with it?
Michele Dondi
wrote:
>Then let us know if there's anything else you'd like to purchase. I
>hear there's a bridge for sale in Brooklyn.
That's sold out. But they told me that there's another one not too far
away, between Brooklyn and Staten Island.
Paul Lalli
> > > Usually they have the full standard available for $250
>
> > Who is this "they" of whom you speak?
>
> They is ISO. I would have a hard time believing that the
> entire body of international standards chose to overlook perl,
Oh, and by the way:
http://www.iso.org/iso/search.htm?qt=Perl&sort=rel&type=simple&published=true
I guess ISO themselves must be 100% wrong about ISO having a standard
too, right? Because, I mean, you HEARD it. Therefore it must exist.
Paul Lalli
Uri Guttman
PL> On Oct 19, 5:13 am, "Wade Ward" <zaxf...@invalid.net> wrote:
>> They is ISO. I would have a hard time believing that the entire
>> body of international standards chose to overlook perl,
>> particularly when I've already heard the document described.
>>
>> perldoc perlhack is a %100 wrong answer.
PL> The levels of stupidity you exhibited in this response is truly
PL> shocking.
PL> Please, go find someone who will sell you an "ISO Certified Standard"
PL> Perl for $250. I'm sure you'll be very happy with your purchase.
PL> Then let us know if there's anything else you'd like to purchase. I
PL> hear there's a bridge for sale in Brooklyn.
i will print up all of the perldocs into paper or pdf's and sell it to
him for $250. not a bad profit margin. :)
uri
--
Uri Guttman ------ u...@stemsystems.com -------- http://www.stemsystems.com
--Perl Consulting, Stem Development, Systems Architecture, Design and Coding-
Search or Offer Perl Jobs ---------------------------- http://jobs.perl.org
Uri Guttman
MD> On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 03:42:50 -0700, Paul Lalli <mri...@gmail.com>
MD> wrote:
>> Then let us know if there's anything else you'd like to purchase. I
>> hear there's a bridge for sale in Brooklyn.
MD> That's sold out. But they told me that there's another one not too far
MD> away, between Brooklyn and Staten Island.
i have never heard of anyone offering to sell the verrazano narrows
bridge. it being a very recent bridge (about 1965), there aren't nearly
as many yokels who would fall for that. but then nigerian scams still
seem to work so who knows!? anyone seen the antiscam commercials
(sponsored by the post office!) which show a f2f nigerian style scam and
how silly they seem in person?
Jim Gibson
<j...@durchholz.org> wrote:
Apparently. I also saw:
1. Programmers should learn assembly language first because it gives
them a machine model.
2. Benchmarking is crucial for optimization.
3. Five rules for writing efficient Perl.
4. Consistent semantics is more important than increased functionality.
5. Perl is superior to Visual Basic.
6. Object-oriented programming is useless.
... and some others.
--
Jim Gibson
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
Joachim Durchholz
> In article <ffa2cl$33s$1...@online.de>, Joachim Durchholz
> <j...@durchholz.org> wrote:
>
>> Abigail schrieb:
>>> _
>>> I don't necessarely agree with his conclusion, but he
>>> makes some interesting arguments.
>>>
>>> [1] http://www.perl.com/pub/a/2000/06/rosler.html
>> I see just one argument: that large bodies (corporations, governments)
>> won't use a language that's not standardized.
>> Did I overlook something?
>
> Apparently. I also saw:
>
None of which are arguments for or against standardization.
Which is what this subthread is about, so I omitted the qualification.
Sorry for being overly terse.
Regards,
Jo
Michele Dondi
wrote:
>seem to work so who knows!? anyone seen the antiscam commercials
>(sponsored by the post office!) which show a f2f nigerian style scam and
>how silly they seem in person?
Occasionally seen some services off a very popular satyrical news
program of Italian television, in which a fake victim contacts them
and pretends to be going to give the money... until the spokeperson
pops out with microphone and cameras.
[*] Not technical English and thus some terms may be lexically
inaccurate. If people understand nontheless, then please correct me.
Michele Dondi
wrote:
>i will print up all of the perldocs into paper or pdf's and sell it to
>him for $250. not a bad profit margin. :)
Go pdf, a larger margin for sure.
Wade Ward
"Joachim Durchholz" <j...@durchholz.org> wrote in message
news:ff9upn$tr1$2...@online.de...
>A standard serves to make the implementations converge on a common
>semantics. Since Perl is a single-implementation language, there is no need
>for a standard.
Again, 100% wrong.
I've got $250.-, but I'd rather spend it on this brunnette named Dani than a
standard that is beyond me right now. When did the Perl Programming come to
exist? We, in the fortran club, know this number well and in two different
ways. We celebrated our 50th birthday last year, but we also have a
diffrent pedigree with the standard. We beginn there at 66. Then there's
77, 90, 95, 2003, 2008. Does the PPL have a similar list?
Abigail
man perlhist
Abigail
--
sub f{sprintf'%c%s',$_[0],$_[1]}print f(74,f(117,f(115,f(116,f(32,f(97,
f(110,f(111,f(116,f(104,f(0x65,f(114,f(32,f(80,f(101,f(114,f(0x6c,f(32,
f(0x48,f(97,f(99,f(107,f(101,f(114,f(10,q ff)))))))))))))))))))))))))
Jürgen Exner
> beginn there at 66. Then there's 77, 90, 95, 2003, 2008. Does the
> PPL have a similar list?
Well, today the ICAO is responsible for standardizing PPL requirements
worldwide although individual countries retain a large degree of freedom to
adapt the requirements to their individual local situations. I don't know
when the first agreement was signed, but my guess would be not long after it
was founded in 1947.
However there were other organizations and treaties long before that. The
first conference took place in 1910 already.
But what does this have to do with the subject of this NG?
jue
RedGrittyBrick
> _
> Wade Ward (zax...@invalid.net) wrote:
> || When did the Perl Programming come to
> || exist? We, in the fortran club, know this number well and in two different
> || ways. We celebrated our 50th birthday last year, but we also have a
> || diffrent pedigree with the standard. We beginn there at 66. Then there's
> || 77, 90, 95, 2003, 2008. Does the PPL have a similar list?
>
>
> man perlhist
>
perldoc perlhist
Ben Bullock
> Strictly speaking I suspect that you'd be right, but with
> "implementation" I meant everything that comes with an implemented Perl,
> the documentation being part of that.
You are claiming that Perl is "defined by its implementation" while at the
same time failing to define clearly what "implementation" means. If
the documentation which comes with Perl is inconsistent with the behaviour
of the computer program "perl", is the documentation correct and the
program faulty, or vice-versa? Or what if "perl" has some abilities which
aren't even mentioned in the documentation?
Ben Bullock
> ... The documentation is an important part of the implementation. So is
> CPAN, for example all the testcode of the serious modules.
What to do if Perl fails the tests though, or if the documentation and the
program disagree?
Michele Dondi
<benkasmi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>You are claiming that Perl is "defined by its implementation" while at the
>same time failing to define clearly what "implementation" means. If
>the documentation which comes with Perl is inconsistent with the behaviour
>of the computer program "perl", is the documentation correct and the
>program faulty, or vice-versa? Or what if "perl" has some abilities which
It depends: p5p's can tell. Someone must take care of making them
agree.
>aren't even mentioned in the documentation?
Someone must take care of mentioning them somewhere in the
documentation.
Ben Bullock
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 22:10:13 +0000 (UTC), Ben Bullock
> <benkasmi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>You are claiming that Perl is "defined by its implementation" while at the
>>same time failing to define clearly what "implementation" means. If
>>the documentation which comes with Perl is inconsistent with the behaviour
>>of the computer program "perl", is the documentation correct and the
>>program faulty, or vice-versa? Or what if "perl" has some abilities which
>
> It depends: p5p's can tell. Someone must take care of making them
> agree.
In other words you're admitting that the language isn't actually defined
anywhere.
A. Sinan Unur
news:ffbjer$hif$2...@ml.accsnet.ne.jp:
Amazing, it still works better than anything else I have used.
Perl is defined by its implementation. As uncertainties arise, Larry and
others try to agree on what changes are necessary to make the
implementation do what people think it should do.
See http://www.xray.mpe.mpg.de/mailing-lists/perl5-porters/
Is there a point to this argument?
Sinan
--
A. Sinan Unur <1u...@llenroc.ude.invalid>
(remove .invalid and reverse each component for email address)
clpmisc guidelines: <URL:http://www.augustmail.com/~tadmc/clpmisc.shtml>
Wade Ward
"Dr.Ruud" <rvtol...@isolution.nl> wrote in message
news:ffa34...@news.isolution.nl...
> benkasmi...@gmail.com schreef:
>> Michele Dondi:
>
>>> Perl unlike other languages is defined by its own
>>> implementation. At least in 5's realms. Get used to it. Just refer to
>>> the docs that came with your perl.
>>
>> Logically speaking, if you accept that Perl is defined by its
>> implementation, then you also accept that there is no such thing as a
>> bug in Perl.
Who speaks logically?
If Perl does something crazy or unexpected, then since
>> Perl is "defined by its implementation", the bizarre behaviour is not
>> a bug, it is the correct behaviour of Perl, at least as far as the
>> language is "defined by its implementation". Also you have to accept
>> that the documentation is wrong if it says something different from
>> what Perl actually does. So if Perl exhibits some bug then the
>> documentation should be considered incorrect, not Perl.
>
> No. The documentation is an important part of the implementation. So is
> CPAN, for example all the testcode of the serious modules.
>
> --
> Affijn, Ruud
>
> "Gewoon is een tijger."
>
nuts, michele
--
Wade Ward
"Paul Lalli" <mri...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1192796106....@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Apparently what I heard might not be %100 true.
Wade Ward
"Abigail" <abi...@abigail.be> wrote in message
news:slrnfhh1pi....@alexandra.abigail.be...
> _
> Joachim Durchholz (j...@durchholz.org) wrote on VCLXII September MCMXCIII
> in <URL:news:ff9upn$tr1$2...@online.de>:
> :} A standard serves to make the implementations converge on a common
> :} semantics. Since Perl is a single-implementation language, there is no
> :} need for a standard.
>
>
> Well, there's more to be said about the merits of a standard than
> just dismissing it with "there's just one implementation".
>
> Read the O'Reilly interview [1] with Larry Rosler (a former clpm poster)
> for instance. I don't necessarely agree with his conclusion, but he
> makes some interesting arguments.
>
> [1] http://www.perl.com/pub/a/2000/06/rosler.html
Listen Print Subscribe to Perl.com ANSI Standard Perl?
Larry Rosler Talks About the Benefits of Standardizing Perl
I'm embarrassed now, because I thought for sure that Perl had been admitted
to computer languages for grown-ups. Apparently not.
--
Wade Ward
"Abigail" <abi...@abigail.be> wrote in message
news:slrnfhi3i5....@alexandra.abigail.be...
'man' is not recognized as an internal or external command,
operable program or batch file.
--
Wade Ward
split // => '"';
${"@_"} = "/"; split // => eval join "+" => 1 .. 7;
*{"@_"} = sub {foreach (sort keys %_) {print "$_ $_{$_} "}};
%{"@_"} = %_ = (Just => another => Perl => Hacker); &{%{%_}};
# perl abigail2.pl >text23.txt
--
--
wade ward
"Nicht verzagen, Bruder Grinde fragen."
"Abigail" <abi...@abigail.be> wrote in message
news:slrnfhi3i5....@alexandra.abigail.be...
Wade Ward
--
--
wade ward
"Nicht verzagen, Bruder Grinde fragen."
"Jürgen Exner" <jurg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:aa9Si.661$6P3.364@trndny02...
Ben Bullock
> Ben Bullock <benkasmi...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:ffbjer$hif$2...@ml.accsnet.ne.jp:
>> In other words you're admitting that the language isn't actually
>> defined anywhere.
>
> Amazing, it still works better than anything else I have used.
I agree that it works, but does that necessarily mean we shouldn't ask
questions about how the language is defined?
> As uncertainties arise, Larry and
> others try to agree on what changes are necessary to make the
> implementation do what people think it should do.
So Perl is defined by what Larry and others think that people think it
should do.
Wade Ward
"Michele Dondi" <bik....@tiscalinet.it> wrote in message
news:gk3hh3deiqckemuur...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 02:13:17 -0700, "Wade Ward" <zax...@invalid.net>
> wrote:
>
>>They is ISO. I would have a hard time believing that the entire body of
>>international standards chose to overlook perl, particularly when I've
>
> perldoc -q ansi
>
> : Found in C:\Programmi\Perl\lib\pod\perlfaq2.pod
> : Is there an ISO or ANSI certified version of Perl?
> : Certainly not. Larry expects that he'll be certified before Perl is.
>
>>already heard the document described.
>
> "Heard"? Somebody told me about "chemical trails", I've already heard
> about them. Thus it must be true...
>
>>perldoc perlhack is a %100 wrong answer.
>
> Huh?!? What's wrong with it?
It's only good enough for the girls I go with. You cats have C as a
back-end, but what's on the front?
Does Fortran, the common C extension, exist for perlers?
Wade Ward
"RedGrittyBrick" <RedGrit...@SpamWeary.foo> wrote in message
news:3eidnVXm850Pv4Ta...@bt.com...
So, you entrust yourselfes to the finns. That'll be gudenov for daniel
karlevich.
Tad McClellan
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 17:42:14 GMT, Uri Guttman <u...@stemsystems.com>
> wrote:
>
>>seem to work so who knows!? anyone seen the antiscam commercials
>>(sponsored by the post office!) which show a f2f nigerian style scam and
>>how silly they seem in person?
>
> Occasionally seen some services off a very popular satyrical news
> program of Italian television, in which a fake victim contacts them
> and pretends to be going to give the money...
Google for "scam baiters" for hours of similar fun...
--
Tad McClellan
email: perl -le "print scalar reverse qq/moc.noitatibaher\100cmdat/"
Tad McClellan
File a bug report of course.
RedGrittyBrick
>
> So Perl is defined by what Larry and others think that people think it
> should do.
Have you read the `perldoc perlhack` that was mentioned earlier?
If not, I commend it to you.
If you have, I don't understand why you'd post this assertion here.
Dr.Ruud
> Dr.Ruud:
>> ... The documentation is an important part of the implementation. So
>> is CPAN, for example all the testcode of the serious modules.
>
> What to do if Perl fails the tests though, or if the documentation
> and the program disagree?
Bugs can be anywhere in the implementation. "Perl" is the language,
"perl" is the binary.
The documentation is (supposed to be) equal on all platforms, the binary
"of course" is not.
So a bug can for example be documentation-specific, or
platform/binary-specific.
Bugs can be documented, for example as "known, will not be fixed anytime
soon".
Bugs get fixed all the time. See also perlbug, which BTW doesn't mention
documentation bugs.
So if your 'perl' fails a test, or if the documentation and the program
disagree, please report the bug.
Dr.Ruud
> In other words you're admitting that the language isn't actually
> defined anywhere.
I still don't understand how you define 'language' here. There is
nothing to "admit". The Perl language is just never meant to be defined
in the sense that you seem to be looking for, if I interpret the
background of your question to your liking. :)
Perl is defined by its implementation, and that has proven to work very
well in many ways, and not so well in many other ways.
Remaining backwards compatible (which is another definition in itself),
is both loved and hated by many p5-ers. Back-porting is still actively
done, for early Perl 5 versions, and for many platforms.
See also the Kurila-fork:
http://dev.tty.nl/static/kurila/kurila-1.3_0/pod/kurilaintro.html
Just my EUR 0.02.
Michele Dondi
<benkasmi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>In other words you're admitting that the language isn't actually defined
>anywhere.
Yep, sort of. So what?
Michele Dondi
<benkasmi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Amazing, it still works better than anything else I have used.
>
>I agree that it works, but does that necessarily mean we shouldn't ask
>questions about how the language is defined?
No you can just fine. In fact you did, and you were answered, even
though you didn't like the answer. Happens...
>> As uncertainties arise, Larry and
>> others try to agree on what changes are necessary to make the
>> implementation do what people think it should do.
>
>So Perl is defined by what Larry and others think that people think it
>should do.
Do you find that so disserviceable to the community? FWIW my personal
experience is the Larry and others mostly got it right: occasionally
this is not the case, but I can live with it.
Michele Dondi
wrote:
>I'm embarrassed now, because I thought for sure that Perl had been admitted
>to computer languages for grown-ups. Apparently not.
Don't be embarassed: if you feel like abandoning it altogether, then
please don't shy away from your inspiration or you may regret it
later!
Michele Dondi
wrote:
>'man' is not recognized as an internal or external command,
>operable program or batch file.
perldoc
Michele Dondi
wrote:
>>>perldoc perlhack is a %100 wrong answer.
>>
>> Huh?!? What's wrong with it?
>It's only good enough for the girls I go with. You cats have C as a
>back-end, but what's on the front?
>
>Does Fortran, the common C extension, exist for perlers?
:|
Please somebody wake me up, this must be a Monty Python sketch, ain't
it?!?
Uri Guttman
MD> On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 04:18:04 -0700, "Wade Ward" <zax...@invalid.net>
MD> wrote:
>>>> perldoc perlhack is a %100 wrong answer.
>>>
>>> Huh?!? What's wrong with it?
>> It's only good enough for the girls I go with. You cats have C as a
>> back-end, but what's on the front?
>>
>> Does Fortran, the common C extension, exist for perlers?
MD> :|
MD> Please somebody wake me up, this must be a Monty Python sketch, ain't
MD> it?!?
i think wade is reenacting the attack on perl harbor with the ladies
auxillary. (otherwise known as mud wrestling :).
as for wanted a formal ISO/ANSI spec, that is hilarious. has he ever
actually seen one? i worked on compilers with the ANSI PL/I spec and i
still haven't recovered from the loss of brain cells.
uri
--
Uri Guttman ------ u...@stemsystems.com -------- http://www.stemsystems.com
--Perl Consulting, Stem Development, Systems Architecture, Design and Coding-
Search or Offer Perl Jobs ---------------------------- http://jobs.perl.org
Jürgen Exner
>>> [...]Does the PPL have a similar list?
>>
>> Well, today the ICAO is responsible for standardizing PPL
>> But what does this have to do with the subject of this NG?
> everything.
I appologize for my limited imagination, but I don't see any possible
relation between the computer programming language Perl and/or its
implemention on the one side and PPL and the ICAO on the other side. Would
you mind to elaborate, please?
Are you e.g. suggesting that programmers who want to use Perl must have 40
hours of mandatory training by a licensed instructor and pass a written,
oral, and practical test administered by a government official before they
are allowed to use Perl, just like it is required for a PPL?
Or are you e.g. suggesting that Perl programmers must pass a biyearly
medical exam as required for a PPL?
Or are you e.g. suggesting that Perl programmers must pass a biyearly
proficiency test as required for a PPL to be allowed to continue to program
in Perl?
jue
s...@netherlands.co
Perl is a "hack" script language, defined by some "implementation", on some
day, at some point in time. As such, it doesen't rise, and will not rise to,
a level of a needing a standard. This is what won't be said here.
Its no different than any other "hack" scripting language out there, that
are born, live a half-life, then die (or evolve before its death) a disinterrested
death.
Ask Microsoft why they don't do a flavor of Perl. Is it because Larry (and a few
others) said no? Surely Microsoft could make a much more POWERFULL Perl.
They do have thier own "flavor" of regular expression processing and hashing isin't something
unique to Perl, its been around since the beginning of (?), ahh, well along time now.
And language constructs distill down to boolean logic still, I may be wrong, Perl may
be doing something different.
Perl is cryptic in its syntax though, have to give it to Larray (and the gang) there.
The there's the trendy saying "why reinvent the wheel", use a CPAN module to do it.
But unfortunately, CPAN is a CSPAM and not so "quality", but hey, what do you wan't
for free (a relative term). If its good, they will even include it in the distribution.
Bottom line, Perl does not have, nor never will have a Standard. It's nothing special
at all. It is cryptic, I'll give u that though.
s...@netherlands.co
>On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 23:03:26 -0700, "Wade Ward" <zax...@invalid.net>
>wrote:
>
>>I'm embarrassed now, because I thought for sure that Perl had been admitted
>>to computer languages for grown-ups. Apparently not.
>
>Don't be embarassed: if you feel like abandoning it altogether, then
>please don't shy away from your inspiration or you may regret it
>later!
>
>
>Michele
Thats some excellent advice, your an inspiration for me!
s...@netherlands.co
>On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 17:42:14 GMT, Uri Guttman <u...@stemsystems.com>
>wrote:
>
>>seem to work so who knows!? anyone seen the antiscam commercials
>>(sponsored by the post office!) which show a f2f nigerian style scam and
>>how silly they seem in person?
>
>Occasionally seen some services off a very popular satyrical news
>program of Italian television, in which a fake victim contacts them
>and pretends to be going to give the money... until the spokeperson
>pops out with microphone and cameras.
>
>
>[*] Not technical English and thus some terms may be lexically
>inaccurate. If people understand nontheless, then please correct me.
>
>
>Michele
Hey we all can't be from the Land of the Brave, and Home of the Free.
Its a pity you can't define English, or ah, technical English (wtf is that?).
Ben Bullock
> On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 05:40:02 +0000 (UTC), Ben Bullock
> <benkasmi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Amazing, it still works better than anything else I have used.
>>
>>I agree that it works, but does that necessarily mean we shouldn't ask
>>questions about how the language is defined?
>
> No you can just fine. In fact you did, and you were answered, even
> though you didn't like the answer. Happens...
No, you did not answer the question. Happens...
>>> As uncertainties arise, Larry and
>>> others try to agree on what changes are necessary to make the
>>> implementation do what people think it should do.
>>
>>So Perl is defined by what Larry and others think that people think it
>>should do.
>
> Do you find that so disserviceable to the community? FWIW my personal
> experience is the Larry and others mostly got it right: occasionally
> this is not the case, but I can live with it.
I don't remember questioning Larry Wall's decision-making powers anywhere,
but I suppose when you've been defeated by someone in a discussion you have
to try to change the subject.
Ben Bullock
<s...@netherlands.co> wrote in message
news:ejtkh3d969fnitv4r...@4ax.com...
> Perl is a "hack" script language, defined by some "implementation", on
> some
> day, at some point in time. As such, it doesen't rise, and will not rise
> to,
> a level of a needing a standard. This is what won't be said here.
> Its no different than any other "hack" scripting language out there, that
> are born, live a half-life, then die (or evolve before its death) a
> disinterrested
> death.
Well, I don't see it dying soon, since a lot of people still use Perl. Even
if it has been mostly abandoned by the younger generation of programmers in
favour of Python and PHP, it's still in wide use.
> Ask Microsoft why they don't do a flavor of Perl. Is it because Larry (and
> a few
> others) said no? Surely Microsoft could make a much more POWERFULL Perl.
I have doubts about this. Microsoft can't get seem to get even
multiplication right:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/09/26/excel_2007_bug/
I don't think they could make a "much more powerful Perl".
> They do have thier own "flavor" of regular expression processing
Have you ever tried to use the "regular expressions" which come with
Microsoft Word?
RedGrittyBrick
> Its a pity you can't define English
Does he need to?
http://www.oed.com/
"News
English Defined"
Tad McClellan
> Ask Microsoft why they don't do a flavor of Perl.
People capable of thinking for themselves will not care
what Microsoft's opinion is.
> Is it because Larry (and a few
> others) said no?
It is likely because they are unwilling to live by its licensing terms.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
> Well, there's more to be said about the merits of a standard than
> just dismissing it with "there's just one implementation".
>
> Read the O'Reilly interview [1] with Larry Rosler (a former clpm poster)
> for instance. I don't necessarely agree with his conclusion, but he
> makes some interesting arguments.
A standard doesn't make ensure conformance. While SOAP for example
has a standard no one quite implements SOAP the same way, so we have a
set of mutually incompatable programs each implementing there own
subset of the protocol.
Part of me would like a nice certificate to say "Perl's all mature and
'Enterpize ready'" but I fear the loss of @larry's guidence that this
might entail.
Wade Ward
<s...@netherlands.co> wrote in message
news:8avkh3hhfci9okkg9...@4ax.com...
> Thats some excellent advice, you['re] an inspiration for me!
>
Right on, dude.
--
wade ward
wa...@zaxfuuq.net
"Der Katze tritt die Treppe hoch; Der Kater tritt sie krumm.%
% De Teufel geit um; er bringt de menschen allet dumm."
schau, schau
Wade Ward
"Jürgen Exner" <jurg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:GOqSi.64$qo2.60@trndny06...
No. I'm trying to add Perl to my bag of tircks. I wouldn't want to do any
of the above to have bona fides.
How can C and Fortran operate with perl, when they seem to have successfully
gotten out of standardization, with dates and times?
Wade Ward
"RedGrittyBrick" <RedGrit...@SpamWeary.foo> wrote in message
news:4--dnVF-ArbtNYfa...@bt.com...
nice link=>fav's.
Wade Ward
"Uri Guttman" <u...@stemsystems.com> wrote in message
news:x7bqatl...@mail.sysarch.com...
>>>>>> "MD" == Michele Dondi <bik....@tiscalinet.it> writes:
>
> MD> On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 04:18:04 -0700, "Wade Ward" <zax...@invalid.net>
> MD> wrote:
>
> >>>> perldoc perlhack is a %100 wrong answer.
> >>>
> >>> Huh?!? What's wrong with it?
> >> It's only good enough for the girls I go with. You cats have C as a
> >> back-end, but what's on the front?
> >>
> >> Does Fortran, the common C extension, exist for perlers?
>
> MD> :|
>
> MD> Please somebody wake me up, this must be a Monty Python sketch, ain't
> MD> it?!?
>
> i think wade is reenacting the attack on perl harbor with the ladies
> auxillary. (otherwise known as mud wrestling :).
>
> as for wanted a formal ISO/ANSI spec, that is hilarious. has he ever
> actually seen one? i worked on compilers with the ANSI PL/I spec and i
> still haven't recovered from the loss of brain cells.
So there exists an ISO doc that has some relevance to perl?
How many battleships are in the harbor? By the time I get to AZ.
Wade Ward
"Dr.Ruud" <rvtol...@isolution.nl> wrote in message
news:ffd5r6...@news.isolution.nl...
=> fav;s
Last of my readinbg for tonight. Now I get to go out and put on a
two-minute offense 30 times. Let's hope I crap out.
"A tiger simply is."
drah dee nit um.
> Just my EUR 0.02.
I'd pay 2.1 cents for yours, maybe even 2.5.
Maybe 10^9.
Jürgen Exner
> "Jürgen Exner" <jurg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:GOqSi.64$qo2.60@trndny06...
>> Wade Ward wrote:
>>> "Jürgen Exner" <jurg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> Wade Ward wrote:
>>>>> [...]Does the PPL have a similar list?
>>>>
>>>> Well, today the ICAO is responsible for standardizing PPL
>>>> requirements worldwide [...]
>>>> But what does this have to do with the subject of this NG?
>>
>>> everything.
>>
>> I appologize for my limited imagination, but I don't see any possible
>> relation between the computer programming language Perl and/or its
>> implemention on the one side and PPL and the ICAO on the other side.
>> Would you mind to elaborate, please?
> How can C and Fortran operate with perl, when they seem to have
> successfully gotten out of standardization, with dates and times?
Obviously you not able to write a comprehensible question or provide a
coherent answer when asked for clarification. I am giving up. So long then.
jue
Uri Guttman
WW> "Uri Guttman" <u...@stemsystems.com> wrote in message
>>
>> i think wade is reenacting the attack on perl harbor with the ladies
>> auxillary. (otherwise known as mud wrestling :).
>>
>> as for wanted a formal ISO/ANSI spec, that is hilarious. has he ever
>> actually seen one? i worked on compilers with the ANSI PL/I spec and i
>> still haven't recovered from the loss of brain cells.
WW> So there exists an ISO doc that has some relevance to perl?
huh?? where did i state that. i said i have worked with the ANSI spec
for PL/I, not perl. there is no spec for perl and none needed for
perl5. perl 6 will have a spec but it will likely not be an ISO/ASNI
standard. but who knows. now please drop this insane issue you have with
a perl5 standard. there ain't one and never gonna be one.
WW> How many battleships are in the harbor? By the time I get to AZ.
8
Wade Ward
--
wade ward
wa...@zaxfuuq.net
"Der Katze tritt die Treppe hoch; Der Kater tritt sie krumm.%
% De Teufel geit um; er bringt de menschen allet dumm."
schau, schau
"Jürgen Exner" <jurg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:QFCSi.528$Qj3.86@trndny01...
Wade Ward
"Uri Guttman" <u...@stemsystems.com> wrote in message
news:x74pgkj...@mail.sysarch.com...
>>>>>> "WW" == Wade Ward <zax...@invalid.net> writes:
>
> WW> "Uri Guttman" <u...@stemsystems.com> wrote in message
> >>
> >> i think wade is reenacting the attack on perl harbor with the ladies
> >> auxillary. (otherwise known as mud wrestling :).
> >>
> >> as for wanted a formal ISO/ANSI spec, that is hilarious. has he ever
> >> actually seen one? i worked on compilers with the ANSI PL/I spec and i
> >> still haven't recovered from the loss of brain cells.
> WW> So there exists an ISO doc that has some relevance to perl?
>
> huh?? where did i state that. i said i have worked with the ANSI spec
> for PL/I, not perl. there is no spec for perl and none needed for
> perl5. perl 6 will have a spec but it will likely not be an ISO/ASNI
> standard. but who knows. now please drop this insane issue you have with
> a perl5 standard. there ain't one and never gonna be one.
What if you got defined without permission? No polling a bunch of hippies.
> WW> How many battleships are in the harbor? By the time I get to AZ.
>
> 8
Search or Offer Perl Jobs ----------------------------
http://jobs.perl.org
What if f2008 says that perl is a common C extension?
Good time for a lu-au-um-laut-dings. Tja.
--
wade ward
wa...@zaxfuuq.net
"Dee Katze tritt die Treppe hoch; Der Kater tritt sie krumm.%
Joe Smith
> I'm embarrassed now
That, by itself, is sufficient.
Michele Dondi
<benkasmi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> No you can just fine. In fact you did, and you were answered, even
>> though you didn't like the answer. Happens...
>
>No, you did not answer the question. Happens...
No I did:
: >In other words you're admitting that the language isn't actually defined
: >anywhere.
:
: Yep, sort of. So what?
I'm also admitting that you're right. So I can't see how did I fail to
answer. Whether my answer is correct, let alone satisfying, is a whole
another matter.
>I don't remember questioning Larry Wall's decision-making powers anywhere,
>but I suppose when you've been defeated by someone in a discussion you have
>to try to change the subject.
Yeah, but I'm much worse than that.
Michele Dondi
>Perl is a "hack" script language, defined by some "implementation", on some
>day, at some point in time. As such, it doesen't rise, and will not rise to,
>a level of a needing a standard. This is what won't be said here.
No, we already said it here, except that we give a positive
connotation to the circumstance instead of a negative one.
>Ask Microsoft why they don't do a flavor of Perl. Is it because Larry (and a few
>others) said no? Surely Microsoft could make a much more POWERFULL Perl.
Also a much more POWERFULL Perll.
>Bottom line, Perl does not have, nor never will have a Standard. It's nothing special
>at all. It is cryptic, I'll give u that though.
Well this is not entirely true, given that for Perl 6 the language is
going to be formalized first and then multiple implementations can
exist: an interesting fact being that still evoultion of the language
proper and the development of prototype implementation are processing
in a parallel manner, with a continuous exchange between the two
areas.
Wade Ward
> On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 15:07:37 -0700, s...@netherlands.co wrote:
>
>>Perl is a "hack" script language, defined by some "implementation", on
>>some
>>day, at some point in time. As such, it doesen't rise, and will not rise
>>to,
>>a level of a needing a standard. This is what won't be said here.
>
> No, we already said it here, except that we give a positive
> connotation to the circumstance instead of a negative one.
>
>>Ask Microsoft why they don't do a flavor of Perl. Is it because Larry (and
>>a few
>>others) said no? Surely Microsoft could make a much more POWERFULL Perl.
>
> Also a much more POWERFULL Perll.
>
>>Bottom line, Perl does not have, nor never will have a Standard. It's
>>nothing special
>>at all. It is cryptic, I'll give u that though.
>
> Well this is not entirely true, given that for Perl 6 the language is
> going to be formalized first and then multiple implementations can
> exist: an interesting fact being that still evoultion of the language
> proper and the development of prototype implementation are processing
> in a parallel manner, with a continuous exchange between the two
> areas.
--
wade ward
wa...@zaxfuuq.net
"Die Katze tritt die Treppe hoch; Der Kater tritt sie krumm.%
% De Teufel geit um; er bringt de menschen allet dumm."
schau, schau
Wade Ward
Was ist also einfach? Welch veryu"engung kann's geben?
,Simple groups? Because that shit was hard to learn. We all retain that
specidific one in the pacifxc coast f representatons and thompson. pg. 466.
tja.
and tja again.
--
wade ward
wa...@zaxfuuq.net
>> I'm embarrassed now
>
> That, by itself, is sufficient.
What was nece?
]
--mel brroks?
Jeremy Numer
> [...]
> How can C and Fortran operate with perl, when they seem to have successfully
> gotten out of standardization, with dates and times?
A day or two ago you were making perfect sense. You completed sentences,
you responded directly and intelligibly to questions and looked like a
normal person.
What happened?
Anyway, Perl can read and write ISO standard dates and time using the
proper functions and modules.
Read the docs for HTTP::Date and search CPAN for Date:: modules.
Many people only need POSIX::strftime to get properly formatted dates.
Michele Dondi
wrote:
>How can C and Fortran operate with perl, when they seem to have successfully
>gotten out of standardization, with dates and times?
They can operate just fine, in several ways, regardless of their
standardized status or not, which is a mostly orthogonal matter.
RedGrittyBrick
> Perl is a "hack" script language, defined by some "implementation", on some
> day, at some point in time. As such, it doesen't rise, and will not rise to,
> a level of a needing a standard. This is what won't be said here.
> Its no different than any other "hack" scripting language out there, that
> are born, live a half-life, then die (or evolve before its death) a disinterrested
> death.
But those can all be viewed as good things :-)
> Ask Microsoft why they don't do a flavor of Perl.
Apparently, Microsoft distribute two versions of Perl with their SFU
product. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows_Services_for_UNIX
Whilst much of SFU has been included with Vista Ultimate, I suspect Perl
has been omitted.
> Surely Microsoft could make a much more POWERFULL Perl.
Microsoft are *not* much interested in cross-platform languages. I think
Microsoft would be more likely to create a Win32 or .NET specific Perl
that is unusable on other platforms. Like J++ and C# (prior to Miguel de
Icaza's independent efforts) can be viewed as attempts by Microsoft to
Balkanize Java.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish.
As Joel Spolsky put it: "Smart companies try to commoditize their
products' complements."
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html
Microsoft implementing a "standard" Perl would be commoditising the O/S.
Microsoft implementing a Perl++ where Win32::API was merged into the
language core and non Win32 APIs dropped would be more useful to
Microsoft I think.
Of course, I expect Microsoft would prefer it's customers to do their
scripting in PowerShell.
But what do I know? :-)
Michele Dondi
wrote:
> WW> So there exists an ISO doc that has some relevance to perl?
>
>huh?? where did i state that. i said i have worked with the ANSI spec
>for PL/I, not perl. there is no spec for perl and none needed for
I think he may have been mislead by the "PL" in PL/I which for some
reson could make him think it has to do with Perl.
Wade, please refer to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PL/I
for more info. All this of course, is very OT.
RedGrittyBrick
> Yes.
AOL? Dada?
--
Es brillig war. Die schlichte Toven
Wirrten und wimmelten in Waben;
Und aller-mümsige Burggoven
Die mohmen Räth' ausgraben
s...@netherlands.co
Its dejavu' all over again.. Yogi Berra, catcher for the New York Yankee's (of the past)
Its an example of the English language taught in college. Formal Symbolic Logic is another
class taught in college, that analizes English. There is no BAD English as far as the
history of the United States goes. There is only non-believer permutations of 3rd world
societies who don't know English, and never will!!!!
Tad McClellan
> On 10/21/2007 02:30 AM, Wade Ward wrote:
>> [...]
>> How can C and Fortran operate with perl, when they seem to have successfully
>> gotten out of standardization, with dates and times?
>
> A day or two ago you were making perfect sense. You completed sentences,
> you responded directly and intelligibly to questions and looked like a
> normal person.
>
> What happened?
It went off it's meds. Happens.
Wade Ward
"RedGrittyBrick" <RedGrit...@SpamWeary.foo> wrote in message
news:Zb2dnai3kpx...@bt.com...
Bewahre doch vor Jammerwoch!
Die Zaehne knirschen Kratzen krallen.
--
wade ward
wa...@zaxfuuq.net
"Der Katze tritt die Treppe hoch; Der Kater tritt sie krumm.%
Wade Ward
"RedGrittyBrick" <RedGrit...@SpamWeary.foo> wrote in message
news:9rednU5Sn-B...@bt.com...
> s...@netherlands.co wrote:
>> Ask Microsoft why they don't do a flavor of Perl.
>
> Apparently, Microsoft distribute two versions of Perl with their SFU
> product. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows_Services_for_UNIX
> Whilst much of SFU has been included with Vista Ultimate, I suspect Perl
> has been omitted.
>
>> Surely Microsoft could make a much more POWERFULL Perl.
>
> Microsoft are *not* much interested in cross-platform languages. I think
> Microsoft would be more likely to create a Win32 or .NET specific Perl
> that is unusable on other platforms. Like J++ and C# (prior to Miguel de
> Icaza's independent efforts) can be viewed as attempts by Microsoft to
> Balkanize Java.
Syntaxes wax and wane. I think that fortran is waxing, while I think that C
is waning. I see them jockey for influence and market share and think of
them as baserunners in a ballgame. C's too afarid to move anywhere.
They're just all-time pitcher, because fortran and perl define themselves
off of C. And though C has a high-profile spot on the mound, it never can
go anywhere. So it will never knock off Java or C++ in a rundown. Perl's
at shortstop. Who's on first?
There's not a dollar in the perl game for MS. Why would they waste their
time?
ActivePerl is one sexy product. I've barely scratched the surface. I'd buy
stock in whoever owns them, but I'm too conservative to have my money
anywhere other than wellsfargo and huntington.
Gödel, Escher, Bach is a timeless masterpiece.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish.
>
> As Joel Spolsky put it: "Smart companies try to commoditize their
> products' complements."
> http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html
>
> Microsoft implementing a "standard" Perl would be commoditising the O/S.
> Microsoft implementing a Perl++ where Win32::API was merged into the
> language core and non Win32 APIs dropped would be more useful to Microsoft
> I think.
>
> Of course, I expect Microsoft would prefer it's customers to do their
> scripting in PowerShell.
pain in the ass ^^^^^^^^^^
>
> But what do I know? :-)
You would have to know that.
--
wade ward
wa...@zaxfuuq.net
"Die Katze tritt die Treppe hoch; Der Kater tritt sie krumm.%
RedGrittyBrick
> Who's on first?
What's on second?
> Gödel, Escher, Bach is a timeless masterpiece.
No, I think you'll find it is an eternal golden braid.
There ought to be some vaguely Perl related content in this posting:
use strict;
use warnings;
print <<EndQuote;
ActiveState is owned by its employees and Pender Financial Group, a
publicly traded investment company focused on technology and healthcare
sectors in British Columbia.
EndQuote
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=PDFFF.PK%2C+
I think you should keep Wells Fargo, but my financial advice is worth
exactly what you paid me for it.
Peter J. Holzer
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 11:04:49 +0200, Dr.Ruud wrote:
>
>> ... The documentation is an important part of the implementation. So is
>> CPAN, for example all the testcode of the serious modules.
>
> What to do if Perl fails the tests though, or if the documentation and the
> program disagree?
"If the code and comments disagree, both are probably wrong"
substitute comments for "tests and documentation" and you have your
answer: If there is a disagreement, it's a bug, and all sides have to be
examined carefully to determine whether the code or the test or the
documentation has to be changed.
Standards do have bugs, too. They are just harder to fix.
hp
--
_ | Peter J. Holzer | I know I'd be respectful of a pirate
|_|_) | Sysadmin WSR | with an emu on his shoulder.
| | | h...@hjp.at |
__/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | -- Sam in "Freefall"
Peter J. Holzer
> On 19 Oct 2007 10:30:11 GMT, Abigail <abi...@abigail.be> wrote:
>
>> Well, there's more to be said about the merits of a standard than
>> just dismissing it with "there's just one implementation".
>>
>> Read the O'Reilly interview [1] with Larry Rosler (a former clpm poster)
>> for instance. I don't necessarely agree with his conclusion, but he
>> makes some interesting arguments.
The argument about the "marketing value" of a standard has some merit.
But a standard is neither necessary nor sufficient for success, even in
corporate and governmental environments.
There is no Windows ISO standard, no Java ISO standard, and yet these
are used very widely. OTOH there is an ISO (or at least ANSI) CPU
standard (for a subset of the SPARC ABI, IIRC) which nobody cares about
and I think the Pascal or BASIC ISO standards are similarily
inconsequential.
Successful standards (like C90 or POSIX) are developed after there have
been multiple implementations and when the implementors actually want to
converge on a single standard. In the case of an open source interpreted
language like perl5 there is little value in a standard. There is only
one implementation, a second implementation is unlikely to happen
(porting is almost always easier than rewriting from scratch) if it
happens compatibility is probably only a minor goal.
> A standard doesn't make ensure conformance. While SOAP for example
> has a standard no one quite implements SOAP the same way, so we have a
> set of mutually incompatable programs each implementing there own
> subset of the protocol.
Same for SQL.
Even the current C standard is widely ignored. While most C compilers
implement C90, there are only 2 or 3 compilers which are certified
C99-conforming, and maybe a handful of others which try to be that. Most
C implementators either ignore C99 completely or implement only those
features which are either easy or demanded by their customers.
> Part of me would like a nice certificate to say "Perl's all mature and
> 'Enterpize ready'" but I fear the loss of @larry's guidence that this
> might entail.
Mostly I fear that would slow down perl development even more than the
combination of "we need to be backwards compatible" and "perl6 is just
around the corner" has done. ISO standards are usually revised every 10
years, and they are viewed as infallible. So if something is
standardized which is genuinely broken (which does happen), it will take
10 years before it is declared "deprecated" and 20 years before it is
removed from the language. With "normal" software development like in
perl the problem can be fixed in the next release (and hopefully by that
time there won't be much code which relies on it so the fix will cause
few problems).
Wade Ward
would there not be bugs in that which is computable?
--
wade Ward
South Jordan pkwy
435 -838-7760
President
wa...@zaxfuuq.net
Westates Companies
Merrill Jensen Consulting
1108 W. South Jordan pkwy
42
wa...@zaxfuuq.net
Merrill Jensen Consulting
1108 W. South Jordan pkwy
435 -838-7760
President
wa...@zaxfuuq.net
Westates Companies
1108 W. South Jordan pkwy
435 -838-7760
President
wa...@zaxfuuq.net
"Peter J. Holzer" <hjp-u...@hjp.at> wrote in message
news:slrnfi63en.77...@zeno.hjp.at...
Wade Ward
> On 2007-10-21 05:06, David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
> <dfor...@usyd.edu.au> wrote:
>> On 19 Oct 2007 10:30:11 GMT, Abigail <abi...@abigail.be> wrote:
>>> Well, there's more to be said about the merits of a standard than
>>> just dismissing it with "there's just one implementation".
>>>
>>> Read the O'Reilly interview [1] with Larry Rosler (a former clpm poster)
>>> for instance. I don't necessarely agree with his conclusion, but he
>>> makes some interesting arguments.
>
> The argument about the "marketing value" of a standard has some merit.
> But a standard is neither necessary nor sufficient for success, even in
> corporate and governmental environments.
> There is no Windows ISO standard, no Java ISO standard, and yet these
> are used very widely. OTOH there is an ISO (or at least ANSI) CPU
> standard (for a subset of the SPARC ABI, IIRC) which nobody cares about
> and I think the Pascal or BASIC ISO standards are similarily
> inconsequential.
Perl ist , in deisem Bereich, verschieden von ihrer Muttersprache C.
>
> Successful standards (like C90 or POSIX) are developed after there have
> been multiple implementations and when the implementors actually want to
> converge on a single standard. In the case of an open source interpreted
> language like perl5 there is little value in a standard. There is only
> one implementation, a second implementation is unlikely to happen
> (porting is almost always easier than rewriting from scratch) if it
> happens compatibility is probably only a minor goal.
>
>> A standard doesn't make ensure conformance. While SOAP for example
>> has a standard no one quite implements SOAP the same way, so we have a
>> set of mutually incompatable programs each implementing there own
>> subset of the protocol.
>
> Same for SQL.
Ich weiß überhaupt nichts über das Obige.
>
> Even the current C standard is widely ignored. While most C compilers
> implement C90, there are only 2 or 3 compilers which are certified
> C99-conforming, and maybe a handful of others which try to be that. Most
> C implementators either ignore C99 completely or implement only those
> features which are either easy or demanded by their customers.
>
>> Part of me would like a nice certificate to say "Perl's all mature and
>> 'Enterpize ready'" but I fear the loss of @larry's guidence that this
>> might entail.
>
> Mostly I fear that would slow down perl development even more than the
> combination of "we need to be backwards compatible" and "perl6 is just
> around the corner" has done. ISO standards are usually revised every 10
> years, and they are viewed as infallible. So if something is
> standardized which is genuinely broken (which does happen), it will take
> 10 years before it is declared "deprecated" and 20 years before it is
> removed from the language. With "normal" software development like in
> perl the problem can be fixed in the next release (and hopefully by that
> time there won't be much code which relies on it so the fix will cause
> few problems).
xdcghsf
Die Maßstäbe in perl kommen von sich selbst. Ich heiße ihn den
Camelstandard. Der Anschluß
an
iso, ist,
zumindest uns juengeren,
eine mit allen mitteln durchzu fiurherendse
Lebensaufgabe escheinedende zielzweck
zu duerfen.
Zug.
Gruß,
Jensen
--