Man, has this newsgroup shrunk. Why? Where gone to?

[David Combs]

It's fairly obvious that this group has really shrunk over
the last year or so.

So, what's up?

Surely, perl usage isn't down.

So where are the problems and answers (via perl-answer gurus)
operating from now? Some web site? (Because gen-x doesn't
like newsgroups?)

Just wondering.

David

[Tim McDaniel]

In article <jv9j56$im6$1...@panix1.panix.com>,

David Combs <dkc...@panix.com> wrote:
> (Because gen-x doesn't like newsgroups?)

Usenet in general is dying. Some newsgroups died long ago; some
newsgroups, that had massive volume, now have a moderate volume.
Some newsgroups have an unusually worthwhile culture or unusually good
posters, but those newsgroups' death is merely going slower.

I've seen hardly any references to Usenet elsewhere in years. I think
it has essentially no visibility, no mind space. I suspect that it's
not that Gen X doesn't like newsgroups, it's that they've never heard
of newsgroups.

Google shovelling them into "Google Groups" and having an increasingly
lousy search system and interface didn't help.

--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com

[Rainer Weikusat]

dkc...@panix.com (David Combs) writes:
> It's fairly obvious that this group has really shrunk over
> the last year or so.
>
> So, what's up?

Too many nasty old men and fans of nasy old men.

[E.D.G.]

"David Combs" <dkc...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:jv9j56$im6$1...@panix1.panix.com...

> It's fairly obvious that this group has really shrunk over
> the last year or so.
>
> So, what's up?

At the risk of getting some Perl programmers upset, I myself have
repeatedly been advised to switch to Python for a programming language. For
one reason, there is apparently a sophisticated graphics package that can be
used with it.

But, most of my lengthy Windows compatible programs have been written
using a combination of Perl and Gnuplot. And I don't know if Python can do
all of the things that Perl can do such as run on probably most Internet
Server computers.

[Rainer Weikusat]

"E.D.G." <edgr...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> "David Combs" <dkc...@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:jv9j56$im6$1...@panix1.panix.com...
>> It's fairly obvious that this group has really shrunk over
>> the last year or so.
>>
>> So, what's up?
>
> At the risk of getting some Perl programmers upset, I myself
> have repeatedly been advised to switch to Python for a programming
> language. For one reason, there is apparently a sophisticated
> graphics package that can be used with it.

Perl has grown out of a UNIX(*) heritage and to someone not familiar
with that, a lot of things in it which actually make perfect sense in
certain situations (Eg, treating subroutine arguments as anonymous
'positional parameters'. Because of this, subroutines can invoke other
subroutines with the arguments passed to themselves, possibly after
adding some, without any kind of 'special insider knowledge' about
these arguments or about the expectations of the subroutine the call
is forwarded to) will just 'look outlandish'. And this means the
immediate, emotional reaction to that is the same emotional reaction
to anything that's unfamiliar, namely, vitriolous rejection.

Python, OTOH, is the programming language whose reference manual
starts with (or used to start with) the sentence 'Unlike the shell,
Python is a real programming language'. This suggests that 'the shell'
the author is thinking of is actually the MS-DOG command interpreter
and that he never really bothered to venture beyond that: It's called
'a shell'. Ergo, it is a technically substandard abomination and
knowing one such 'shell' is really enough of that for several
lifetimes. The cultural conventions (and prejudices) embodied in
Python are much more compatible to a mind whose idea of how computers
ought to work (and how they ought to be programmed) has been shaped by
'a Microsoft-centric environment' ...

NB: I've never read past the paraphrased statement and unless forced
to, I never will ('forced to' meaning 'I have to maintain some
non-trivial body of Python code').

[Henry Law]

On 31/07/12 23:38, Tim McDaniel wrote:
>
> Google shovelling them into "Google Groups" and having an increasingly
> lousy search system and interface didn't help.
>

I agree. Also the move away from email amongst GenX. It was convenient
(is still convenient) to get discussions in the same way as you get
email, i.e. through the mail/news client; when you move to getting your
mail from Hotmail or Gmail (or even Facebook, which is still email in
concept) then a newsreader becomes a problem and not an answer.

--

Henry Law Manchester, England

[E.D.G.]

"Rainer Weikusat" <rwei...@mssgmbh.com> wrote in message
news:87r4rod...@sapphire.mobileactivedefense.com...

> Perl has grown out of a UNIX(*) heritage and to someone not familiar
> with that, a lot of things in it which actually make perfect sense in
> certain situations (Eg, treating subroutine arguments as anonymous
> 'positional parameters'.

A personal friend of mine has been working full-time as a programmer
and Web site developer for years for a major university. She does all of
her programming for the various university faculty members etc. using
Python. And although I have not taken a close look at Python, I have a high
regard for her work and expect that the university would not be letting her
use that language for their important projects unless they approved of it.
However, I am not trying to get people to use Python but am just stating
that there are some people who like it.

There are two things that I myself don't like regarding Perl.

First, in my opinion, you generally need to be an intermediate to
expert computer programmer to start using the free download version of Perl
made available from ActiveState. I myself had a very difficult time moving
from Fortran and Basic to Perl. For example, it took me several years to
learn how to create .exe files from a .pl file. With the Perl version I was
using, large numbers of modules had to be downloaded and linked to Perl
before the program would do anything. Then it was necessary to determine
exactly how to configure the command that creates the .exe files.

Once all of that is learned it is then extremely easy to create the
.exe files though the ones that I myself use are quite large compared with
the .pl files.

If there had been simple, do this, do this, and then do that
instructions for how to create those .exe files it would not have taken
several years for me to determine what needed to be done.

Perhaps newer versions of Perl are easier to work with if you are new
to the language. There are of course books that you can purchase that
explain how to write programs using Perl. But I looked at several in
bookstores and decided that they were too difficult to understand. And
anyway, part of the reason for having a free downloadable program is to make
it possible to use it without having to purchase anything.

Second, Perl would probably be a lot more attractive to quite a few
people if it had a powerful graphics package such as Gnuplot that could be
linked with it as a module. And I stated that a number of times over the
years in posts to both this Newsgroup and the Gnuplot Newsgroup.

I myself use both a "Pipe" and data files at the same time to send
information from Perl to Gnuplot. But it was difficult for me to learn how
to do that. And there are timing problems between the two programs that
require special attention.

It would be much easier if either the Perl or Gnuplot programmers
created a version of Gnuplot that would link with Perl as a module. Then
simple "Plot" commands could be used directly from Perl. And there would
not be any timing problems. Both languages are written using C++ code if I
remember correctly. So merging them like that should not require too much
effort. And that would certainly provide Gnuplot with a lot more power. I
don't think that Gnuplot can use arrays very easily if at all.

On the positive side, I myself like Perl because if you are willing
to spend some time learning how to perform some task, Perl can then do just
about anything that you would like.

One of my own most important applications is what might be referred
to as a "virtual operating system" that I created and use with the Windows
version of Perl. Perl can read keyboard keys and also send keystrokes to
Windows as if they were entered on the keyboard. And that particular
program makes it extremely easy to do repetitive things such as visit any
number of Internet Web sites by pressing combinations of two keys instead of
having to enter entire Web addresses.

[Henry Law]

On 03/08/12 14:58, E.D.G. wrote:

> First, in my opinion, you generally need to be an intermediate to
> expert computer programmer to start using the free download version of
> Perl made available from ActiveState. I myself had a very difficult
> time moving from Fortran and Basic to Perl. For example, it took me
> several years to learn how to create .exe files from a .pl file.

I'm not aware of _any_ version of Perl that is anything other than free.
And moving on from that you should be aware that you're taking a very
Windows-centric view of things.

Most Perl programmers in the Windows environment don't turn their .pl
files into .exe; they just use them as input to Perl itself. Certainly
within the non-Windows environments that's the rule. AIUI you have to
pay for the ActiveState tool that makes .exe files! And I bet that the
.exe files you've created _all_ have the Perl executable, as well as the
code of all the modules, in every .exe file; it's no wonder they're
large. Perl itself takes a much more traditional (and IMO professional)
approach with shared libraries and shared executables.

> large numbers of modules had to be downloaded and linked to Perl before the program would do anything

You can look at that feature in two ways: because Perl is extensible
you're not restricted just to what the language can do. And you don't
need to install/distribute things that you don't use. I admit that if
you take over someone else's code then installing all the pre-req
modules (if they're not standard supplied ones) can take a good while;
but taking over someone else's code is never easy.

> graphics package ... that could be linked with it as a module

I wonder whether you've got the wrong idea here, as that's the second
time you've written "linked". When you use a Perl module you call its
subroutines as Perl subroutines, or you instantiate them as Perl
objects. That's the interface; no "linking" is required, in the
traditional object code sense (unless whatever you're doing to make .exe
files includes that operation).

Perl does have access to at least one graphics package, called Tk.
Let's not argue whether or not it's "powerful" or whether it's easy to
use: I'm taking it as an example. In order to use it -- and any other
graphics package that might be available -- your just "use Tk;" and then
off you go creating its objects and invoking its methods. You can even
extend a package by over-riding some bits of it with your own code.

[E.D.G.]

"Henry Law" <ne...@lawshouse.org> wrote in message
news:MLudnbpiSoRpQIbN...@giganews.com...

> On 03/08/12 14:58, E.D.G. wrote:

Thanks for the comments.

Basically, I am not disagreeing with your comments but will just add some
thoughts.

> I'm not aware of _any_ version of Perl that is anything other than free.
> And moving on from that you should be aware that you're taking a very
> Windows-centric view of things.

A very large number of computer users around the world have Windows
as their operating system. So, they would be running their Perl programs in
a Windows environment as I am.

>
> Most Perl programmers in the Windows environment don't turn their .pl
> files into .exe; they just use them as input to Perl itself.

Most of my Perl based scientific programs are being given to people
around the world for free through Web site downloads. And so they need to
be .exe programs. Otherwise people would need to install Perl in order for
them to run. As .exe programs they will run by themselves. And even though
they are fairly large, that is not really a problem. How many people have a
problem with disk space these days?

> I wonder whether you've got the wrong idea here, as that's the second time
> you've written "linked".

I understand how the Perl modules work. By "linked" I simply meant
that you need to download the module and tell Perl to use it.

> Perl does have access to at least one graphics package, called Tk.

I checked on Tk long ago. And Gnuplot looked much more powerful for
use with Windows. For one thing, it lets Windows automatically control the
graphics screen size. And that makes life easier.

Finally,

Our world's evolutionary process has a basic law: "Evolve or
perish." The more attractive a computer language is to the largest number
of potential users, the more likely that it will survive and prosper.

[Adam Russell]

On 8/3/12 9:58 AM, E.D.G. wrote:
[snip]

> Second, Perl would probably be a lot more attractive to quite a
> few people if it had a powerful graphics package such as Gnuplot that
> could be linked with it as a module. And I stated that a number of
> times over the years in posts to both this Newsgroup and the Gnuplot
> Newsgroup.
>
> I myself use both a "Pipe" and data files at the same time to
> send information from Perl to Gnuplot. But it was difficult for me to
> learn how to do that. And there are timing problems between the two
> programs that require special attention.
>
> It would be much easier if either the Perl or Gnuplot programmers
> created a version of Gnuplot that would link with Perl as a module.
> Then simple "Plot" commands could be used directly from Perl. And there
> would not be any timing problems. Both languages are written using C++
> code if I remember correctly. So merging them like that should not
> require too much effort. And that would certainly provide Gnuplot with
> a lot more power. I don't think that Gnuplot can use arrays very easily
> if at all.

[snip]
I use Gnuplot from Perl quite a bit and think you may be doing things
the hard way.
Check out the module Chart::Gnuplot
http://search.cpan.org/~kwmak/Chart-Gnuplot-0.17/lib/Chart/Gnuplot.pm
"Under the hood" it communicates to Gnuplot much the same way that you
are doing so manually. However, to the programmer, it provides a nice
Perl-ish interface. There are other Gnuplot modules in cpan but this is
the best in my opinion. (Disclaimer: I have submitted patches to this
module ;) ).
Also, if you haven't already, you may want to look at PDL (Perl Data
Language) http://pdl.perl.org/
With PDL you may find the sort of environment you want. Start with the
core module documentation and see if it matches your needs.
http://pdl.perl.org/?docs=Modules&title=PDL::Modules

[Keith Thompson]

"E.D.G." <edgr...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
[...]

> It would be much easier if either the Perl or Gnuplot programmers
> created a version of Gnuplot that would link with Perl as a module. Then
> simple "Plot" commands could be used directly from Perl. And there would
> not be any timing problems.

http://search.cpan.org/search?query=gnuplot&mode=all

> Both languages are written using C++ code if I
> remember correctly.

Perl and Gnuplot are both implemented in C, not C++.

(Note that Gnuplot is not related to the GNU project.)

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks...@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Will write code for food.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[Rainer Weikusat]

"E.D.G." <edgr...@ix.netcom.com> writes:

[...]

>> Most Perl programmers in the Windows environment don't turn their
>> .pl files into .exe; they just use them as input to Perl itself.
>
> Most of my Perl based scientific programs are being given to
> people around the world for free through Web site downloads. And so
> they need to be .exe programs. Otherwise people would need to install
> Perl in order for them to run.

The obvious benefit would be that these people will then be able to
change the code to suit their needs better.

[...]

> Finally,
>
> Our world's evolutionary process has a basic law: "Evolve or
> perish."

Actually, the basic law is rather "don't evolve too much, lest you
will perish once the circumstances you're so well adapted to
change".

> The more attractive a computer language is to the largest number of
> potential users, the more likely that it will survive and prosper.

As someone from 19th century Germany nicely put it: Vox populi. vox
Rindvieh ...

[J�rgen Exner]

Henry Law <ne...@lawshouse.org> wrote:
>On 03/08/12 14:58, E.D.G. wrote:
>
>> First, in my opinion, you generally need to be an intermediate to
>> expert computer programmer to start using the free download version of
>> Perl made available from ActiveState.

You are welcome to your opinion. Please note that most people are likely
to not share your opinion.

>> I myself had a very difficult
>> time moving from Fortran and Basic to Perl. For example, it took me
>> several years to learn how to create .exe files from a .pl file.

Why would you possibly want to do this? Of course Perl is an interpreted
language. If you insist on compiling it, then of course you are inviting
a lot of difficulties.

>> large numbers of modules had to be downloaded and linked to Perl before the program would do anything

???
What program is "the program"? In let's say C you already need to
include modules to do a primitive "Hello World" program.
Perl in comparison is comes with _a_lot_ of functionality already built
in to the language core.

jue

[Xho Jingleheimerschmidt]

On 07/31/2012 02:36 PM, David Combs wrote:
> It's fairly obvious that this group has really shrunk over
> the last year or so.
>
> So, what's up?

Most of the traffic was generated by inexperienced people asking
questions and ensuing answers and discussions. Now inexperienced people
are unlikely to use newsgroups. And the old-timers left just don't have
all that much to say to each other.

From what I can tell, the groups that haven't shrunk tremendously are
the ones of a nature where the old times can keep discovering new things
to yack about, or just keep yacking about the same old things forever
(i.e. politics, trolls). Of course the sample of groups I attempt to
follow is probably not large enough to be statistically significant.

>
> Surely, perl usage isn't down.
>
> So where are the problems and answers (via perl-answer gurus)
> operating from now? Some web site?

Yeah. There is perlmonks that I know of, and a few more I run into
occasionally but can't remember until I run into them again and
recognize them.

> (Because gen-x doesn't
> like newsgroups?)

Like it? They mostly aren't even aware it exists.

And Google's ever-increasing crappification of their interface surely
doesn't help. It is hard to tell what is less usable, their search
interface or their posting interface. It is amazing how an otherwise
good company can so systematically screw up this one area with such
consistency, intensity, and vigor.

Xho

[Justin C]

On 2012-08-08, Xho Jingleheimerschmidt <xho...@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

> It is amazing how an otherwise
> good company can so systematically screw up this one area with such
> consistency, intensity, and vigor.

<aol>me too</aol>


Justin.

--
Justin C, by the sea.

[Shmuel Metz]

In <5021f274$0$20999$ed36...@nr5-q3a.newsreader.com>, on 08/07/2012

at 08:55 PM, Xho Jingleheimerschmidt <xho...@gmail.com> said:

>And Google's ever-increasing crappification of their interface
>surely doesn't help. It is hard to tell what is less usable,
>their search interface or their posting interface. It is amazing
>how an otherwise good company can so systematically screw up this
>one area with such consistency, intensity, and vigor.

Perhaps you need to reexamine your assumption that they are otherwise
good.

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spam...@library.lspace.org

[Xho Jingleheimerschmidt]

On 08/08/2012 05:48 AM, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
> In <5021f274$0$20999$ed36...@nr5-q3a.newsreader.com>, on 08/07/2012
> at 08:55 PM, Xho Jingleheimerschmidt <xho...@gmail.com> said:
>
>> And Google's ever-increasing crappification of their interface
>> surely doesn't help. It is hard to tell what is less usable,
>> their search interface or their posting interface. It is amazing
>> how an otherwise good company can so systematically screw up this
>> one area with such consistency, intensity, and vigor.
>
> Perhaps you need to reexamine your assumption that they are otherwise
> good.
>

I reexamine it on a regular basis.

It's a cron job.

Xho

[Cal Dershowitz]

On 08/03/2012 12:45 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:

{I'd snip it, but tja}

> "E.D.G." <edgr...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> [...]
>> It would be much easier if either the Perl or Gnuplot programmers
>> created a version of Gnuplot that would link with Perl as a module. Then
>> simple "Plot" commands could be used directly from Perl. And there would
>> not be any timing problems.
>
> http://search.cpan.org/search?query=gnuplot&mode=all
>
>> Both languages are written using C++ code if I
>> remember correctly.
>
> Perl and Gnuplot are both implemented in C, not C++.
>
> (Note that Gnuplot is not related to the GNU project.)
>

Hi Keith,

Curious how circumstances find me asking you a question again.

It's been a lot of ticks on the real world clock since I did a lot with
usenet, so I wonder, where are the good groups leftover? I think the
pride of the pack is comp.lang.fortran , but that might just be another
extension to you.

My question is whether there's still that good windows group with a dash
in it? lots of syllables.
--
Cal

[Keith Thompson]

Cal Dershowitz <c...@example.invalid> writes:
[...]

> Curious how circumstances find me asking you a question again.
>
> It's been a lot of ticks on the real world clock since I did a lot with
> usenet, so I wonder, where are the good groups leftover? I think the
> pride of the pack is comp.lang.fortran , but that might just be another
> extension to you.
>
> My question is whether there's still that good windows group with a dash
> in it? lots of syllables.

(I would have replied by e-mail, since this isn't particularly
Perl-related, but you didn't provide a valid address. I'll be
brief.)

comp.lang.c and comp.std.c are far from dead, though the former is
still somewhat infested with trolls. comp.unix.programmer is also
doing reasonably well. I think the Windows group you're referring
to is comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32; I haven't visited lately.

There are likely others, but I can't read everything.

[Cal Dershowitz]

On 08/20/2012 04:06 AM, Keith Thompson wrote:
> Cal Dershowitz <c...@example.invalid> writes:
> [...]
>> Curious how circumstances find me asking you a question again.
>>
>> It's been a lot of ticks on the real world clock since I did a lot with
>> usenet, so I wonder, where are the good groups leftover? I think the
>> pride of the pack is comp.lang.fortran , but that might just be another
>> extension to you.
>>
>> My question is whether there's still that good windows group with a dash
>> in it? lots of syllables.
>
> (I would have replied by e-mail, since this isn't particularly
> Perl-related, but you didn't provide a valid address. I'll be
> brief.)
>
> comp.lang.c and comp.std.c are far from dead, though the former is
> still somewhat infested with trolls. comp.unix.programmer is also
> doing reasonably well. I think the Windows group you're referring
> to is comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32; I haven't visited lately.
>
> There are likely others, but I can't read everything.
>

Thx, keith. Lange Zeit...viel Wasser.

Would you indulge me by allowing me to ask you, Keith, the other Keith,
my good old friend, how do people mix C and Perl with installations?
--
Cal

[Keith Thompson]

Cal Dershowitz <c...@example.invalid> writes:
[...]

> Would you indulge me by allowing me to ask you, Keith, the other Keith,
> my good old friend, how do people mix C and Perl with installations?

That's a decent question for this newsgroup; addressing it to me
personally isn't particularly useful, partly because I don't have a
good answer. You might want to post a new question with a clearer
subject (people who can answer might be ignoring this thread).
I'm also not 100% sure what you're asking. Clarifying what "with
installations" adds to the question would be helpful.

[Xho Jingleheimerschmidt]

On 08/26/2012 01:05 AM, Cal Dershowitz wrote:
>
> Would you indulge me by allowing me to ask you, Keith, the other Keith,
> my good old friend, how do people mix C and Perl with installations?

I like Inline::C. But then again, I don't know what restrictions "with
installations" is supposed to imply.

Xho

[Ben Morrow]

Quoth Xho Jingleheimerschmidt <xho...@gmail.com>:

If I had to guess, I would guess the question means something along the
lines of 'how do people usually manage the installation of C libraries
required by Perl modules, since CPAN doesn't handle them', but it's
impossible to be sure.

Ben