Top Turds of comp.lang.perl.misc (2007)
perl...@hotmail.com
information. Unfortunately there are a few individuals who are
frequently rude and abusive. For their bad behavior they are hereby
named the Top Turds of comp.lang.perl.misc for 2007.
7. Jürgen Exner jurg...@hotmail.com
Generally okay but occasionally throws tantrums
6. Tad McClellan ta...@augustmail.com
Never learned how to get along with others
5. Purl Gurl purl...@purlgurl.net
Nuff said!
4. A. Sinan Unur as...@cornell.edu
Luckily the a.sinine one has been absent for a while
3. Michele Dondi bla...@lcm.mi.infn.it
Surely one of the rudest Italians ever!
2. Uri Guttman u...@stemsystems.com
Start using the Shift key, dumb ass. Quit hyping your pathetic
File::Slurp module so much. And cut out the whining!
And the stinkiest turd of all...
1. Sherm Pendley sh...@dot-app.org
This arrogant asshole seems to think he has all the answers and is
consistently condescending and bullying. Undoubtedly one of the most
obnoxious posters in the history of the group.
Purl Gurl
I strongly object to your insulting article. Quite clear,
over the years, I have earned the number one turd position.
Pendley is a sissified geek as are those other childish boys.
I am number one turd, by far and by talent.
Purl Gurl
use...@davidfilmer.com
> For their bad behavior they are hereby
> named the Top Turds of comp.lang.perl.misc for 2007.
Your list includes a troll (pg), which diminishes its credibility.
However, just out of curiosity, can you cite a single instance where
someone posted a message which conforms to the group's posting
guidelines and was treated rudely by anyone on your list (except the
troll)?
--
The best way to get a good answer is to ask a good question.
David Filmer (http://DavidFilmer.com)
Uri Guttman
and when you contribute help here or on cpan and not anonymously, then
you might not be in all those killfiles. hope you like python cause you
ain't getting help here.
p> And the stinkiest turd of all...
you are surely that winner. take a bow.
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
Michele Dondi
>> named the Top Turds of comp.lang.perl.misc for 2007.
>
>Your list includes a troll (pg), which diminishes its credibility.
Haha! I would say it just contributes to its bullshittery...
>However, just out of curiosity, can you cite a single instance where
>someone posted a message which conforms to the group's posting
>guidelines and was treated rudely by anyone on your list (except the
>troll)?
You know, I never insist too much on the posting guidelines -indeed I
think you can hardly find a post of mine explicitly advocating, let
alone mentioning, them-. For me it's all a matter of common sense. And
I paraphrase your question asking whether one can cite a single
instance of a SENSIBLY asked question which spawned rude replies.
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,
Michele Dondi
wrote:
> p> And the stinkiest turd of all...
>
>you are surely that winner. take a bow.
No, no, no, how can you say that? We don't know who's behind the smart
nick, but for sure he must be a helpful contributor to the group who
has helped hundreds of people with the maximum kindness. Nay, a real
hero. A filantropic soul, for one!
But speaking seriously, I wonder how many contributors to
comp.lang.perl.misc who "are helpful and share good
information" remain after you remove from the list the "few
individuals who are frequently rude and abusive"...
grocery_stocker
> information. Unfortunately there are a few individuals who are
> frequently rude and abusive. For their bad behavior they are hereby
> named the Top Turds of comp.lang.perl.misc for 2007.
>
> Generally okay but occasionally throws tantrums
>
> Never learned how to get along with others
>
> Nuff said!
>
> 4. A. Sinan Unur a...@cornell.edu
> Luckily the a.sinine one has been absent for a while
>
> 3. Michele Dondi bla...@lcm.mi.infn.it
> Surely one of the rudest Italians ever!
>
> 2. Uri Guttman u...@stemsystems.com
> Start using the Shift key, dumb ass. Quit hyping your pathetic
> File::Slurp module so much. And cut out the whining!
>
> And the stinkiest turd of all...
>
> This arrogant asshole seems to think he has all the answers and is
> consistently condescending and bullying. Undoubtedly one of the most
> obnoxious posters in the history of the group.
Thank you for lowering the standard on this group.
Purl Gurl
> perl-2 wrote:
>>Most contributors to comp.lang.perl.misc are helpful and share good
>>information. Unfortunately there are a few individuals who are
>>frequently rude and abusive. For their bad behavior they are hereby
>>named the Top Turds of comp.lang.perl.misc for 2007.
> Thank you for lowering the standard on this group.
Ha! Ha! Standards for this group cannot be lowered.
This quickly dying group is amongst the lowest of
childish trollfest groups. This group is all but
defunct these days, which is a blessing in disguise;
this group is an embarrassment to the Perl community.
Purl Gurl
Tad McClellan
> Most contributors to comp.lang.perl.misc are helpful and share good
> information.
And here is a list of some of them:
> 7. Jürgen Exner jurg...@hotmail.com
> 6. Tad McClellan ta...@augustmail.com
> 4. A. Sinan Unur as...@cornell.edu
> 3. Michele Dondi bla...@lcm.mi.infn.it
> 2. Uri Guttman u...@stemsystems.com
> 1. Sherm Pendley sh...@dot-app.org
They all post using their real names.
What is your real name?
Or are you more cowardly than they?
--
Tad McClellan SGML consulting
ta...@augustmail.com Perl programming
Fort Worth, Texas
A. Sinan Unur
@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
> Most contributors to comp.lang.perl.misc are helpful and share good
> information. Unfortunately there are a few individuals who are
> frequently rude and abusive. For their bad behavior they are hereby
> named the Top Turds of comp.lang.perl.misc for 2007.
...
> 4. A. Sinan Unur ...
> Luckily the a.sinine one has been absent for a while
Actually, no. I am still around, reading and learning as time permits, but
right now, teaching and research are taking up more of my time than usual.
I am honored that you chose to mention my name along with a few people
whom I greatly respect (those tend to use their real names when they post
instead of hiding behind silly monikers).
How's junior high these days?
Sinan
--
A. Sinan Unur <1u...@llenroc.ude.invalid>
(remove .invalid and reverse each component for email address)
comp.lang.perl.misc guidelines on the WWW:
http://augustmail.com/~tadmc/clpmisc/clpmisc_guidelines.html
kra...@visto.com
> perl-2...@hotmail.com <perl-2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> They all post using their real names.
>
> What is your real name?
>
> Or are you more cowardly than they?
>
Or maybe he wishes to remain anonymous since this little thing called
the internet is an anonymous playhouse ;)
use...@davidfilmer.com
> Actually, no. I am still around
That's good to know! I was a neophyte when you were more active here,
and you taught me a lot. If you visit OSCON here in Portland, I owe
you a coffee/beer.
Octo
> Most contributors to comp.lang.perl.misc are helpful and share good
> information. Unfortunately there are a few individuals who are
> frequently rude and abusive. For their bad behavior they are hereby
> named the Top Turds of comp.lang.perl.misc for 2007.
>
> Generally okay but occasionally throws tantrums
>
> Never learned how to get along with others
>
> Nuff said!
>
> 4. A. Sinan Unur a...@cornell.edu
> Luckily the a.sinine one has been absent for a while
>
> 3. Michele Dondi bla...@lcm.mi.infn.it
> Surely one of the rudest Italians ever!
>
> 2. Uri Guttman u...@stemsystems.com
> Start using the Shift key, dumb ass. Quit hyping your pathetic
> File::Slurp module so much. And cut out the whining!
>
> And the stinkiest turd of all...
>
> This arrogant asshole seems to think he has all the answers and is
> consistently condescending and bullying. Undoubtedly one of the most
> obnoxious posters in the history of the group.
In my youth I often found myself working menial computer jobs, being a
data janitor essentially. In order to preserve my sanity and alleviate
the mind numbing tedium of such rock-breaking endeavours I would often
smoke pipes of cannabis in the toilets of these establishments. One
day I was preparing a sacrement from my last tiny blim and such was
the paltry amount of my stash that I fumbled it and dropped it down
the toilet into which I had just relieved myself (number ones only
fortunately). Well, you can imagine the agony of that moment. I
considered for several seconds before the overwhelming truth burst
into my mind: You know you're going to fish it out, and the process,
not to mention your blow, will become exponentially worse the longer
you wait. So it came to be that 5 seconds after the fumble my stash
was once again held in my hand, albeit a pissier hand than the one
with which I had entered the gents.
I suspect this experience precisely mirrors the sequence of emotions
felt by many people who endeavour to find help in this newsgroup.
Yours faithfully
Richard Gration
Yes, that's my real name. Even now I am joyfully warming my hands on
the blazing bridge fire behind me ...
A. Sinan Unur
@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
Thank you David, that is very nice of you. It would be my pleasure to join
you for either but I am not going to be there. Have fun.
Robert Hicks
"Thank you sir, may I have another"
because I take it as a LEARNING experience.
Robert
Michele Dondi
wrote:
>Sorry, I have been corrected by Tad. I have to say:
>
>"Thank you sir, may I have another"
>
>because I take it as a LEARNING experience.
Noooo, and didn't you start an endless flame about how the core of
clpmisc is composed of elitist dumbasses who take a particular
pleasure at rudely bashing newbies? I find that hard to believe...
:-)
Purl Gurl
> Robert Hicks wrote:
>> Sorry, I have been corrected by Tad. I have to say:
>> "Thank you sir, may I have another"
>> because I take it as a LEARNING experience.
> Noooo, and didn't you start an endless flame about how the core of
> clpmisc is composed of elitist dumbasses who take a particular
> pleasure at rudely bashing newbies? I find that hard to believe...
My presumption is you insulting meatheads have not noticed this
discussion group is dying because of you childish troll boys.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.perl.misc/about?hl=en
Purl Gurl
use...@davidfilmer.com
> My presumption is you insulting meatheads have not noticed this
> discussion group is dying because of you childish troll boys.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.perl.misc/about?hl=en
Hmmm. So the total number of questions is declining. "Calls to the
helpdesk" are declining. The "helpdesk" must have been doing a good
job of educating the users. I've gotten a good education in this
group with expert advice promptly and freely offered. But I'm getting
better, so I need to ask fewer questions.
If problems were *increasing*, I'd be more concerned.
Tad McClellan
> My presumption is you insulting meatheads have not noticed this
> discussion group is dying because of you childish troll boys.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.perl.misc/about?hl=en
Quantity is not related to quality.
There are less posts because the meatheads have already answered
most of the questions.
And because they are so turdish, people hope to find their answer
via Google Groups so that they won't have to suffer the anguish
that comes with a fresh answer to their question.
The decline in traffic is due to greater overall efficiency!
Robert Hicks
<snip>
> Noooo, and didn't you start an endless flame about how the core of
> clpmisc is composed of elitist dumbasses who take a particular
> pleasure at rudely bashing newbies? I find that hard to believe...
> :-)
>
> Michele
I don't think "I" have started any flame wars. : \
Hmmm....maybe I will have to look into that.
Robert
cart...@gmail.com
> The decline in traffic is due to greater overall efficiency!
Actually, it's because Perl is dying.
People are using other languages, Java, PHP, and in my area, Python.
We still use a good amount of Perl, in fact, I'm engaged in a fairly
large database automation program which will probably use about 15 or
so Perl scripts. But serious developers will use Java, or even VB
(yes, even VB) rather than Perl, at least in my community.
If you want to get laughed at, use Perl. It's so ... 80's.
CC
Purl Gurl
> Tad McClellan wrote:
>> The decline in traffic is due to greater overall efficiency!
> Actually, it's because Perl is dying.
> People are using other languages, Java, PHP, and in my area, Python.
> We still use a good amount of Perl, in fact, I'm engaged in a fairly
> large database automation program which will probably use about 15 or
> so Perl scripts. But serious developers will use Java, or even VB
> (yes, even VB) rather than Perl, at least in my community.
There is a measured degree of truth to your notion.
Perl has become bloatware much like Stein's CGI module.
Years back, Perl was relatively fast and easy to maintain.
When the Perl 5.x version series came out, Perl began
slowing down and began becoming bloatware. Version 5.8.x
"broke" a lot of current scripts. Version 6.x I am told
breaks almost all prior scripts. I am also told the newer
6.x version is exceptionally huge and very cumbersome.
Perl 4.x series is, by far, the best. Introduction of modules
is truly what began Perl's long downhill slide. Perl 4.x did
quite fine with require and include syntax; there was never
really any need for 5.x variety modules, and modules, in their
own right, are huge and cumbersome; bloatware.
For reasons which do not make a lick of sense, Perl porters
elected to add as many whistles and bells to Perl as possible.
Almost all those whistles and bells are not needed. These types
of toys should be the job of modules, not perl core.
An excellent example and an icon of poor logic on the part of
Perl porters, is the addition of an "our" declaration within
perl core. This our declaration is completely useless and
serves only to fix the broken strict module. Perl porters
decided perl core should be designed around modules, which
is completely ass backwards. I cannot rationalize why Perl
porters are writing perl core _around_ a broken module. This
inherently renders perl core broken.
Here we are today and Perl is slower than ever, more resource
wasteful than ever and certainly classic bloatware.
This direction Perl porters have taken Perl makes not a lick
of sense. Today, demand is for high speed access and ease of
use. My high speed access reference is not just the internet
and the web. Regardless of end user need, people today are
impatient and expect all things to be quick and easy.
Perl porters have taken Perl in the opposite direction, have
turned Perl into a slow and cumbersome monster. Perl has lost
market appeal. Quite sensible sleeker and faster languages
are replacing Perl in mainstream usage.
Yes, Perl is dying and the reason for this is Perl porters
have destroyed Perl with all their childish boy toys, whistles,
bells and flashing lights. This once "Swiss Army Knife" is
now a massive Sherman tank dragging along trailer loads of
useless junk followed by ten brigades of fat slow modules.
Perl is good as dead, thanks to Perl porters.
As to this discussion group, this falling off of participation,
which is quickly reaching zero participation save for the regulars
here who troll each other, this death of this group I contribute
directly these self-proclaimed gods of Perl around here who simply
delight in abusing, insulting and humiliating anyone and everyone
who drops in here to visit. This is a very childish discussion
group and a very hateful discussion group.
Were you around for the "Alaskan Electrician" incident or the
"purl gurl net" incident? Nothing has changed. Quite the opposite,
regulars here are more abusive, more hateful and are in greater
numbers than ever before.
This is a Good Ol' Boys club. Another year or so, the only left
here will be these good ol' boys who will fall to bickering
amongst themselves having no new participants dropping in,
or rarely dropping in.
Over the years I have watched literally hundreds and hundreds
of people drop in to visit only to be insulted and humiliated.
They leave and do not return. Word spreads around, more and
more people avoid this group. Heck, there are a couple of boys
here who have been stalking and harassing me, oh gosh, I think
since 2002 year or so, a good four or five years, and those boys
stalk and harass me even when I am not here for months and months.
This is a sick group and this group is dying. Responsibility for
the death of this group rests solely upon the shoulders of those
who have been regulars here for years.
Purl Gurl
Ed Jay
As a struggling Perl newbie, I derive little encouragement to pursue my
education from your statements. Perhaps it's time for me to go down a
different programming path while I'm still embryonic.
I'm even less encouraged when I read:
On 16 Mar, "The Count" wrote:
>Im a BSc4 Maths/Computer Science student and would like to find out
>the best way to learn programming in perl.Perl is not offered in my
>course but I find that it is a very popular language.I can program in
>Pascal,Delphi and C++...
Perl isn't offered in the BSc/CS curriculum? That speaks loudly to me. I
tried to take a course in Perl at my local junior college, but it's not
offered.
Which brings me back on-topic. Many of the people who come to
comp.lang.perl.misc are people, like myself and 'The Count,' who are forced
to learn on our own. This newsgroup is chartered to be among our Internet
resources. I'm therefore struck with amazement when I read a group veteran's
response to a newbie's technical question and obvious Usenet-newbie request
that the answer be sent to him by email:
>How profoundly rude of you!
>The reason this newsgroup exists is to help fellow programmers.
>They will not be helped if you hoard the answer.
How profoundly rude, indeed! Having lurked here for a couple of months, the
offensive response was expected from the NG regular. As are set of similar
comments, by many of the people in the OP's list. Look at the blatant
hypocrisy in the above. Does anyone really think that this type of response
provides assistance or fosters a desire to further participate in this
forum? Or, to learn and perpetuate this programming language?
Or, does it matter?
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)
Ed Jay
>cartercc wrote:
>> Tad McClellan wrote:
>>> The decline in traffic is due to greater overall efficiency!
>> Actually, it's because Perl is dying.
>
You go girl! :-)
Jürgen Exner
> On 16 Mar, "The Count" wrote:
>> Im a BSc4 Maths/Computer Science student and would like to find out
>> the best way to learn programming in perl.Perl is not offered in my
>> course but I find that it is a very popular language.I can program in
>> Pascal,Delphi and C++...
>
> Perl isn't offered in the BSc/CS curriculum? That speaks loudly to
> me. I tried to take a course in Perl at my local junior college, but
> it's not offered.
You are offered courses in specific programming languages? What a concept is
that?
Learning algorithms is part of the curriculum, learning data structures is
part of the curriculum, learning fundamentals of programming language design
may be part of the curriculum. But not learning a specific language.
When I was at university we had to deliver our solutions in whatever
language the professor prescribed, but we had to learn those languages on
your own. If it was an unusual language then the professor might condescent
to present the language in one two-hour lecture or maybe offer a one
afternoon addon tutorial. But after that you were on your own.
jue
Michele Dondi
>> The decline in traffic is due to greater overall efficiency!
>
>Actually, it's because Perl is dying.
God is dead.
Marx is dead.
I'm most certainly not well myself.
And now you tell me even Perl is starting to feel bad...
>People are using other languages, Java, PHP,
PHP?
>and in my area, Python.
Nice area! Have fun! No, seriously, eh!
>so Perl scripts. But serious developers will use Java, or even VB
>(yes, even VB) rather than Perl, at least in my community.
And developers with a sense of humour program in Perl.
BTW: nice community!
>If you want to get laughed at, use Perl. It's so ... 80's.
Oh, you mean like the backpack on one shoulder only? (Well, in Italy
we used to at least. If you didn't, then you were considered a loser.)
grocery_stocker
> carte...@gmail.com scribed:
>
> >On Apr 12, 8:45 pm, Tad McClellan <t...@augustmail.com> wrote:
> >> The decline in traffic is due to greater overall efficiency!
>
> >Actually, it's because Perl is dying.
>
Do you have some kind of data to support this assertion?
> >People are using other languages, Java, PHP, and in my area, Python.
> >We still use a good amount of Perl, in fact, I'm engaged in a fairly
> >large database automation program which will probably use about 15 or
> >so Perl scripts. But serious developers will use Java, or even VB
> >(yes, even VB) rather than Perl, at least in my community.
>
> >If you want to get laughed at, use Perl. It's so ... 80's.
>
Each programming language has it's own strengths and weaknesses. If I
feel perl is the right tool to solve the problem, I'll use it.
> As a struggling Perl newbie, I derive little encouragement to pursue my
> education from your statements. Perhaps it's time for me to go down a
> different programming path while I'm still embryonic.
>
> I'm even less encouraged when I read:
>
> On 16 Mar, "The Count" wrote:
>
> >Im a BSc4 Maths/Computer Science student and would like to find out
> >the best way to learn programming in perl.Perl is not offered in my
> >course but I find that it is a very popular language.I can program in
> >Pascal,Delphi and C++...
>
> Perl isn't offered in the BSc/CS curriculum? That speaks loudly to me. I
> tried to take a course in Perl at my local junior college, but it's not
> offered.
>
Did schools like MIT or Stanford ever offer a "regular" course in
Perl? Please enlighten me on this because I never applied to either of
these schools.
> Which brings me back on-topic. Many of the people who come to
> comp.lang.perl.misc are people, like myself and 'The Count,' who are forced
> to learn on our own. This newsgroup is chartered to be among our Internet
> resources. I'm therefore struck with amazement when I read a group veteran's
> response to a newbie's technical question and obvious Usenet-newbie request
> that the answer be sent to him by email:
>
Forced to learn on our own? You don't learn because you love to learn?
> >How profoundly rude of you!
> >The reason this newsgroup exists is to help fellow programmers.
> >They will not be helped if you hoard the answer.
>
> How profoundly rude, indeed! Having lurked here for a couple of months, the
> offensive response was expected from the NG regular. As are set of similar
> comments, by many of the people in the OP's list. Look at the blatant
> hypocrisy in the above. Does anyone really think that this type of response
> provides assistance or fosters a desire to further participate in this
> forum? Or, to learn and perpetuate this programming language?
>
> Or, does it matter?
I forgot what else I was going to say.
Chad
Ed Jay
>On Apr 14, 12:34 am, Ed Jay <e...@aes-intl.com> wrote:
>> carte...@gmail.com scribed:
>>
>> >On Apr 12, 8:45 pm, Tad McClellan <t...@augustmail.com> wrote:
>> >> The decline in traffic is due to greater overall efficiency!
>>
>> >Actually, it's because Perl is dying.
>>
>Do you have some kind of data to support this assertion?
I didn't assert the question.
>
>> >People are using other languages, Java, PHP, and in my area, Python.
>> >We still use a good amount of Perl, in fact, I'm engaged in a fairly
>> >large database automation program which will probably use about 15 or
>> >so Perl scripts. But serious developers will use Java, or even VB
>> >(yes, even VB) rather than Perl, at least in my community.
>>
>> >If you want to get laughed at, use Perl. It's so ... 80's.
>>
>
>Each programming language has it's own strengths and weaknesses. If I
>feel perl is the right tool to solve the problem, I'll use it.
>
>> As a struggling Perl newbie, I derive little encouragement to pursue my
>> education from your statements. Perhaps it's time for me to go down a
>> different programming path while I'm still embryonic.
>>
>> I'm even less encouraged when I read:
>>
>> On 16 Mar, "The Count" wrote:
>>
>> >Im a BSc4 Maths/Computer Science student and would like to find out
>> >the best way to learn programming in perl.Perl is not offered in my
>> >course but I find that it is a very popular language.I can program in
>> >Pascal,Delphi and C++...
>>
>> Perl isn't offered in the BSc/CS curriculum? That speaks loudly to me. I
>> tried to take a course in Perl at my local junior college, but it's not
>> offered.
>>
>
>Did schools like MIT or Stanford ever offer a "regular" course in
>Perl? Please enlighten me on this because I never applied to either of
>these schools.
I don't know, but I have seen classes offered in javascript, Java, VB, C++
and others. I would have thought that if Perl is as popular as we'd like to
believe, it too would be offered.
>
>> Which brings me back on-topic. Many of the people who come to
>> comp.lang.perl.misc are people, like myself and 'The Count,' who are forced
>> to learn on our own. This newsgroup is chartered to be among our Internet
>> resources. I'm therefore struck with amazement when I read a group veteran's
>> response to a newbie's technical question and obvious Usenet-newbie request
>> that the answer be sent to him by email:
>>
>
>Forced to learn on our own? You don't learn because you love to learn?
You misunderstood my comment. We are forced to learn on our own versus
taking a class.
>
>> >How profoundly rude of you!
>> >The reason this newsgroup exists is to help fellow programmers.
>> >They will not be helped if you hoard the answer.
>>
>> How profoundly rude, indeed! Having lurked here for a couple of months, the
>> offensive response was expected from the NG regular. As are set of similar
>> comments, by many of the people in the OP's list. Look at the blatant
>> hypocrisy in the above. Does anyone really think that this type of response
>> provides assistance or fosters a desire to further participate in this
>> forum? Or, to learn and perpetuate this programming language?
>>
>> Or, does it matter?
>
>I forgot what else I was going to say.
>
>Chad
>
I finally understand what is meant by a 'hanging Chad!' :-))
Michele Dondi
>>If you want to get laughed at, use Perl. It's so ... 80's.
>>
>As a struggling Perl newbie, I derive little encouragement to pursue my
>education from your statements. Perhaps it's time for me to go down a
>different programming path while I'm still embryonic.
Please don't! (/me reads further on below...) Please do! :-)
>I'm even less encouraged when I read:
>
>On 16 Mar, "The Count" wrote:
>>Im a BSc4 Maths/Computer Science student and would like to find out
>>the best way to learn programming in perl.Perl is not offered in my
>>course but I find that it is a very popular language.I can program in
>>Pascal,Delphi and C++...
>
>Perl isn't offered in the BSc/CS curriculum? That speaks loudly to me. I
>tried to take a course in Perl at my local junior college, but it's not
>offered.
It doesn't surprise me even a little bit. In fact I don't think Perl
is best suited as a *learning* language.
>Which brings me back on-topic. Many of the people who come to
>comp.lang.perl.misc are people, like myself and 'The Count,' who are forced
>to learn on our own. This newsgroup is chartered to be among our Internet
/me too.
>resources. I'm therefore struck with amazement when I read a group veteran's
/me's too.
>response to a newbie's technical question and obvious Usenet-newbie request
>that the answer be sent to him by email:
>
>>How profoundly rude of you!
>>The reason this newsgroup exists is to help fellow programmers.
>>They will not be helped if you hoard the answer.
>
>How profoundly rude, indeed! Having lurked here for a couple of months, the
Yep, really rude. Given that help here is given on a volounteering
basis, it is also given at some conditions. One of which being that it
be public, for others to also benefit from it and possibly to allow
corrections.
ut then the OP may have asked for the answers to be handwritten on
parchment paper and delivered to his physical address along with a
bottle of champagne by a stripteaser. And from your POV it would have
been very polite, because he's "an obvious newbie" to USENET.
>offensive response was expected from the NG regular. As are set of similar
^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^
A remark that that's not the way the NG works is *NOT* offensive:
: From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [web1913]:
:
: Offense \Of*fense"\, Offence \Of*fence"\, n. [F., fr. L.
: offensa. See {Offend}.]
: 1. The act of offending in any sense; esp., a crime or a sin,
: an affront or an injury.
Had the regular also added "you idiot", it would have been. But he
didn't...
>comments, by many of the people in the OP's list. Look at the blatant
>hypocrisy in the above. Does anyone really think that this type of response
>provides assistance or fosters a desire to further participate in this
>forum? Or, to learn and perpetuate this programming language?
Most certainly not. I'm already looking up some pornstars to hire (see
above) to be more gentle to the next newbie who pops here just saying
"help me", without helping people to help him/her (some top male
perfomer expected in the second case). Should we loose him/her, what a
terrible loss for the community would result!!
>Or, does it matter?
Yes it does matter. You should notice though, that just along with the
authoritative sources you quoted yourself, just today in a post in
some other thread I read:
: Can't thank you enough! It was (really){2,}\.\.\. dumb on my part to
: not check the faq first!
I suppose you should feel compelled now to go to that thread and warn
the incautious OP, who obviously should know better: for some reasons
he feels like thanking the group and of course just didn't realize how
hard he's been bashed and abused by the offensive regulars. Please, do
help him before it's too late!
Michele Dondi
>>Did schools like MIT or Stanford ever offer a "regular" course in
>>Perl? Please enlighten me on this because I never applied to either of
>>these schools.
>
>I don't know, but I have seen classes offered in javascript, Java, VB, C++
>and others. I would have thought that if Perl is as popular as we'd like to
>believe, it too would be offered.
As I wrote in my other post, I don't think so. Even if Perl were many
many times more popular than it actually is. I think that it's a good
thing people will learn how to program with Java. Then they will
stumble upon Perl and say: whoa, so I don't have to create a whole
class just to print "hello, world"?
>>Forced to learn on our own? You don't learn because you love to learn?
>
>You misunderstood my comment. We are forced to learn on our own versus
>taking a class.
I think that was just (probably misplaced) sarcasm.
Ed Jay
I've always felt that when someone has to exaggerate to make their point,
their point isn't worth mentioning.
>And from your POV it would have
>been very polite, because he's "an obvious newbie" to USENET.
Too bad some people have abandoned the thought of politeness. If a poster is
recognized as a newbie, it is easy to phrase one's response to the newbie's
request without resorting to offensive banter. How difficult is it to write,
'This NG exists to help fellow programmers. Responding by email defeats
sharing information?'
>
>>offensive response was expected from the NG regular. As are set of similar
> ^^^^^^^^^
> ^^^^^^^^^
>
>A remark that that's not the way the NG works is *NOT* offensive:
It depends on the manner in which the information was conveyed. Calling
someone profoundly rude because they're ignorant is indeed offensive.
>
>: From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [web1913]:
>:
>: Offense \Of*fense"\, Offence \Of*fence"\, n. [F., fr. L.
>: offensa. See {Offend}.]
>: 1. The act of offending in any sense; esp., a crime or a sin,
>: an affront or an injury.
>
>Had the regular also added "you idiot", it would have been. But he
>didn't...
Telling someone they are profoundly rude, when saying so is completely
unnecessary and inappropriate, is patently wrong. If you can't see it I feel
sorry for you.
>
>>comments, by many of the people in the OP's list. Look at the blatant
>>hypocrisy in the above. Does anyone really think that this type of response
>>provides assistance or fosters a desire to further participate in this
>>forum? Or, to learn and perpetuate this programming language?
>
>Most certainly not. I'm already looking up some pornstars to hire (see
>above) to be more gentle to the next newbie who pops here just saying
>"help me", without helping people to help him/her (some top male
>perfomer expected in the second case). Should we loose him/her, what a
>terrible loss for the community would result!!
I hope your programming capabilities exceed your lame attempts at
exaggerating reality. Your sarcasm is lost on yourself.
>
>>Or, does it matter?
>
>Yes it does matter. You should notice though, that just along with the
>authoritative sources you quoted yourself, just today in a post in
>some other thread I read:
>
>: Can't thank you enough! It was (really){2,}\.\.\. dumb on my part to
>: not check the faq first!
>
>I suppose you should feel compelled now to go to that thread and warn
>the incautious OP, who obviously should know better: for some reasons
>he feels like thanking the group and of course just didn't realize how
>hard he's been bashed and abused by the offensive regulars. Please, do
>help him before it's too late!
>
I feel compelled to tell you that your resorting to grossly amplified,
unrelated examples to make your case has failed. Had you not tried to be
sarcastic you may have made a valid point. Your response was lame, at best.
If anyone needs help, it's people who behave as you have in your response.
Ed Jay
>On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 09:19:47 -0700, Ed Jay <ed...@aes-intl.com> wrote:
>
>>>Did schools like MIT or Stanford ever offer a "regular" course in
>>>Perl? Please enlighten me on this because I never applied to either of
>>>these schools.
>>
>>I don't know, but I have seen classes offered in javascript, Java, VB, C++
>>and others. I would have thought that if Perl is as popular as we'd like to
>>believe, it too would be offered.
>
>As I wrote in my other post, I don't think so. Even if Perl were many
>many times more popular than it actually is. I think that it's a good
>thing people will learn how to program with Java. Then they will
>stumble upon Perl and say: whoa, so I don't have to create a whole
>class just to print "hello, world"?
If nothing else, you got me to cross Java off my list of 'maybe I'll learn.'
:-)
>
>>>Forced to learn on our own? You don't learn because you love to learn?
>>
>>You misunderstood my comment. We are forced to learn on our own versus
>>taking a class.
>
>I think that was just (probably misplaced) sarcasm.
>
I seem to attract misplaced sarcasm. ;-)
Robert Hicks
> On 13 Apr 2007 12:31:17 -0700, carte...@gmail.com wrote:
>
<snip>
> >and in my area, Python.
>
> Nice area! Have fun! No, seriously, eh!
>
I thought Ruby was the "I have FUN when I program" language? : )
Robert
cart...@gmail.com
provocation, and that may or may not excuse my harsh words. Please let
me temper what I said, as a former Perl newbie to a present Perl
newbie.
Programming languages, and all software (including OS's), are merely
tools. Use the best tool for the job. Personally, I believe that
everyone should be proficient in a scripting language and a system
language. People differ on what falls into what category, but for me,
I choose Perl for my scripting language and Java for my system
language. My present job requires a lot of heavy duty text and file
processing. IMO, Perl is THE BEST (!!!) tool for this. Java can't
touch it.
By the same token, if I have to build software that requires more than
about 50 LOC, I'll use Java. Java is an industrial strength tool
suitable for industrial programming, Perl isn't. Yeah, web pages,
database stuff, system administration, file manipulation, use Perl for
this -- you really can't beat it.
And ... if you look at these tasks ... they have been around for quite
a while, and despite what I said about Perl being so 80's, it's a
mature and well supported technology. You won't misspend your time
gaining proficiency in Perl.
CC
Michele Dondi
>>ut then the OP may have asked for the answers to be handwritten on
>>parchment paper and delivered to his physical address along with a
>>bottle of champagne by a stripteaser.
>
>I've always felt that when someone has to exaggerate to make their point,
>their point isn't worth mentioning.
Well, you know, when someone refuses hard to understand something that
should be so simple, then you try any trick that springs to mind. And
exaggeration or not, sarcasm or not, the difference between the
newbie's actual request and my "example" is purely quantitative, not
qualitative: it's just the same, rude, irrespectful approach.
>>And from your POV it would have
>>been very polite, because he's "an obvious newbie" to USENET.
>
>Too bad some people have abandoned the thought of politeness. If a poster is
>recognized as a newbie, it is easy to phrase one's response to the newbie's
>request without resorting to offensive banter. How difficult is it to write,
>'This NG exists to help fellow programmers. Responding by email defeats
>sharing information?'
And how is this *really* different from what Tad wrote? If you say
"idiot" or "son of a bitch" you're making unpleasant attributions to
*a person* with regards to stuff you don't really know. If you say
that *an action* of that person is rude, you're plainly reporting a
perceived charachteristic of that action, with regards to something
you *do* know. You're *informing* the person. No more no less. It's
quite different.
>>>offensive response was expected from the NG regular. As are set of similar
>> ^^^^^^^^^
>> ^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>A remark that that's not the way the NG works is *NOT* offensive:
>
>It depends on the manner in which the information was conveyed. Calling
>someone profoundly rude because they're ignorant is indeed offensive.
'How profoundly rude of you!' ne 'How profoundly rude you are!';
>>Had the regular also added "you idiot", it would have been. But he
>>didn't...
>
>Telling someone they are profoundly rude, when saying so is completely
>unnecessary and inappropriate, is patently wrong. If you can't see it I feel
>sorry for you.
Telling someone that something she did is profoundly rude, when saying
so is completely necessary and appropriate, is patently right. (For
otherwise, by virtue of a mistaken sense of kindness, she will behave
in exactly the same manner the next time.) If you can't see it I feel
sorry for you.
>>Most certainly not. I'm already looking up some pornstars to hire (see
>>above) to be more gentle to the next newbie who pops here just saying
>>"help me", without helping people to help him/her (some top male
>>perfomer expected in the second case). Should we loose him/her, what a
>>terrible loss for the community would result!!
>
>I hope your programming capabilities exceed your lame attempts at
>exaggerating reality. Your sarcasm is lost on yourself.
Nope, they're worse. Congratulations, you've just discovered one more
respect of how horrible a person I am.
>>Yes it does matter. You should notice though, that just along with the
>>authoritative sources you quoted yourself, just today in a post in
>>some other thread I read:
>>
>>: Can't thank you enough! It was (really){2,}\.\.\. dumb on my part to
>>: not check the faq first!
>>
>>I suppose you should feel compelled now to go to that thread and warn
>>the incautious OP, who obviously should know better: for some reasons
>>he feels like thanking the group and of course just didn't realize how
>>hard he's been bashed and abused by the offensive regulars. Please, do
>>help him before it's too late!
>>
>I feel compelled to tell you that your resorting to grossly amplified,
BTW: how is the example "grossly amplified"? I just cut the quote
above and pasted it here, verbatim. (But the quote signs, that is.)
>unrelated examples to make your case has failed. Had you not tried to be
>sarcastic you may have made a valid point. Your response was lame, at best.
I have worse problems. Really. But I think you should really go and
get some sense of humour, it doesn't hurt and it's cheap.
>If anyone needs help, it's people who behave as you have in your response.
While I don't have the slightest idea of how you can claim that, I
suppose you're right. In fact I *do* often need help. In particular,
when I need help with Perl, this group is my preferred resource to
search it. Actually I've learnt more from here about it than from
anything else. Incidentally, I've never been told that I was being
rude, by the regulars that is. I've never felt insulted or offended,
by the regulars that is. YMMV. Indeed, it seems it *does*, for some
reason that completely eludes my comprehension. I'm just sorry for
you, because I consider myself lucky for having had the opportunity to
receive help from this group.
Michele Dondi
wrote:
>> Nice area! Have fun! No, seriously, eh!
>>
>
>I thought Ruby was the "I have FUN when I program" language? : )
I didn't know, but I felt compelled to search and it seems so!
Unfortunately I don't know it, and I say "unfortunately" because from
all accounts I've read it seems very interesting. (I don't share the
same feeling wrt Python.) But then it's known to be heavily inspired
by Perl, and I like to think that it's the source of the fun. Oh, and
Perl 6 borrows features back from Ruby, which makes for more fun. And
for even more fun, Pugs is a Perl 6 implementation "optimized for
fun"...
Purl Gurl
> Robert Hicks wrote:
>>> Nice area! Have fun! No, seriously, eh!
>> I thought Ruby was the "I have FUN when I program" language? : )
> I didn't know, but I felt compelled to search and it seems so!
> Unfortunately I don't know it, and I say "unfortunately" because from
> all accounts I've read it seems very interesting. (I don't share the
> same feeling wrt Python.) But then it's known to be heavily inspired
> by Perl, and I like to think that it's the source of the fun. Oh, and
> Perl 6 borrows features back from Ruby, which makes for more fun. And
> for even more fun, Pugs is a Perl 6 implementation "optimized for
> fun"...
Perl 6 is a disaster. Seven years in development and Perl 6
remains a patchwork three ring circus. I have doubts Perl 6
will ever be released and if so, Perl 6 is not likely to be
adopted into mainstream programming.
Those seven years of wasted efforts could have been directed
into rendering Perl 5 a wildly popular programming language,
such as developing a lite version of perl 5 core for speed
and efficiency.
Perl 6 is vaporware bloatware which will prove unpopular.
Purl Gurl
Three Ring Circus:
Ed Jay
>On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 11:51:00 -0700, Ed Jay <ed...@aes-intl.com> wrote:
>
>>>ut then the OP may have asked for the answers to be handwritten on
>>>parchment paper and delivered to his physical address along with a
>>>bottle of champagne by a stripteaser.
>>
>>I've always felt that when someone has to exaggerate to make their point,
>>their point isn't worth mentioning.
>
>Well, you know, when someone refuses hard to understand something that
>should be so simple, then you try any trick that springs to mind. And
>exaggeration or not, sarcasm or not, the difference between the
>newbie's actual request and my "example" is purely quantitative, not
>qualitative: it's just the same, rude, irrespectful approach.
Is it rude or disrespectful if the person committing the faux pas is
ignorant of the 'rules?' I think not. I also think it's pretty easy to spot
a newbie, i.e., an ignorant one, so it's real easy to go that extra word or
two in the name of diplomacy. You remember the Golden Rule, don't you?
>
>>>And from your POV it would have
>>>been very polite, because he's "an obvious newbie" to USENET.
>>
>>Too bad some people have abandoned the thought of politeness. If a poster is
>>recognized as a newbie, it is easy to phrase one's response to the newbie's
>>request without resorting to offensive banter. How difficult is it to write,
>>'This NG exists to help fellow programmers. Responding by email defeats
>>sharing information?'
>
>And how is this *really* different from what Tad wrote? If you say
>"idiot" or "son of a bitch" you're making unpleasant attributions to
>*a person* with regards to stuff you don't really know. If you say
>that *an action* of that person is rude, you're plainly reporting a
>perceived charachteristic of that action, with regards to something
>you *do* know. You're *informing* the person. No more no less. It's
>quite different.
It isn't much different than what Tad wrote, but it reads miles apart.
That's my point.
>
>>>>offensive response was expected from the NG regular. As are set of similar
>>> ^^^^^^^^^
>>> ^^^^^^^^^
>>>
>>>A remark that that's not the way the NG works is *NOT* offensive:
>>
>>It depends on the manner in which the information was conveyed. Calling
>>someone profoundly rude because they're ignorant is indeed offensive.
>
> 'How profoundly rude of you!' ne 'How profoundly rude you are!';
A infers B, but I understand your point.
>
>>>Had the regular also added "you idiot", it would have been. But he
>>>didn't...
>>
>>Telling someone they are profoundly rude, when saying so is completely
>>unnecessary and inappropriate, is patently wrong. If you can't see it I feel
>>sorry for you.
>
>Telling someone that something she did is profoundly rude, when saying
>so is completely necessary and appropriate, is patently right. (For
>otherwise, by virtue of a mistaken sense of kindness, she will behave
>in exactly the same manner the next time.) If you can't see it I feel
>sorry for you.
Don't feel sorry for me so fast. I agree with your point.
>
>>>Most certainly not. I'm already looking up some pornstars to hire (see
>>>above) to be more gentle to the next newbie who pops here just saying
>>>"help me", without helping people to help him/her (some top male
>>>perfomer expected in the second case). Should we loose him/her, what a
>>>terrible loss for the community would result!!
>>
>>I hope your programming capabilities exceed your lame attempts at
>>exaggerating reality. Your sarcasm is lost on yourself.
>
>Nope, they're worse. Congratulations, you've just discovered one more
>respect of how horrible a person I am.
If bad programming makes a person a horrible person, I'm in much more
trouble than you are.
>
>>>Yes it does matter. You should notice though, that just along with the
>>>authoritative sources you quoted yourself, just today in a post in
>>>some other thread I read:
>>>
>>>: Can't thank you enough! It was (really){2,}\.\.\. dumb on my part to
>>>: not check the faq first!
>>>
>>>I suppose you should feel compelled now to go to that thread and warn
>>>the incautious OP, who obviously should know better: for some reasons
>>>he feels like thanking the group and of course just didn't realize how
>>>hard he's been bashed and abused by the offensive regulars. Please, do
>>>help him before it's too late!
>>>
>>I feel compelled to tell you that your resorting to grossly amplified,
>
>BTW: how is the example "grossly amplified"? I just cut the quote
>above and pasted it here, verbatim. (But the quote signs, that is.)
I don't want to ignore your question, but I forget what I was thinking,
besides the porn star, when I wrote it. Mea culpa. I'm old.
>
>>unrelated examples to make your case has failed. Had you not tried to be
>>sarcastic you may have made a valid point. Your response was lame, at best.
>
>I have worse problems. Really. But I think you should really go and
>get some sense of humour, it doesn't hurt and it's cheap.
I'm known for having a wonderful sense of humor. You ought to see my code.
>
>>If anyone needs help, it's people who behave as you have in your response.
>
>While I don't have the slightest idea of how you can claim that, I
>suppose you're right. In fact I *do* often need help. In particular,
>when I need help with Perl, this group is my preferred resource to
>search it. Actually I've learnt more from here about it than from
>anything else. Incidentally, I've never been told that I was being
>rude, by the regulars that is. I've never felt insulted or offended,
>by the regulars that is. YMMV. Indeed, it seems it *does*, for some
>reason that completely eludes my comprehension. I'm just sorry for
>you, because I consider myself lucky for having had the opportunity to
>receive help from this group.
>
Again, don't be so fast feeling sorry for me. I too have had tremendous luck
in getting help resulting from my participation in this NG, even as a
lurker. As to my suggesting you were rude, etc., on reflection, after
reading some of today's nasty posts your sarcasm probably triggered a
proactive response. Sorry 'bout that.
Uri Guttman
MD> 'How profoundly rude of you!' ne 'How profoundly rude you are!';
michele, please don't try to teach such good logical english! you don't
speak it natively! :)
>> If anyone needs help, it's people who behave as you have in your response.
MD> While I don't have the slightest idea of how you can claim that, I
MD> suppose you're right. In fact I *do* often need help. In
MD> particular, when I need help with Perl, this group is my preferred
MD> resource to search it. Actually I've learnt more from here about
MD> it than from anything else. Incidentally, I've never been told
MD> that I was being rude, by the regulars that is. I've never felt
MD> insulted or offended, by the regulars that is. YMMV. Indeed, it
MD> seems it *does*, for some reason that completely eludes my
MD> comprehension. I'm just sorry for you, because I consider myself
MD> lucky for having had the opportunity to receive help from this
MD> group.
ok, i will insult you gratuitously: you're just an italian perl hacker!!
:)
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
Ed Jay
>I spoke harshly. I may have had justification, or at least
>provocation, and that may or may not excuse my harsh words. Please let
>me temper what I said, as a former Perl newbie to a present Perl
>newbie.
Understood. Not to worry, though. After making it through the first 100
pages of 'The Llama,' I'm not about to quit. :-)
I have programming experience in machine (assembly) language and javascript.
The more Perl I learn, the happier I am.
>
>Programming languages, and all software (including OS's), are merely
>tools. Use the best tool for the job. Personally, I believe that
>everyone should be proficient in a scripting language and a system
>language. People differ on what falls into what category, but for me,
>I choose Perl for my scripting language and Java for my system
>language. My present job requires a lot of heavy duty text and file
>processing. IMO, Perl is THE BEST (!!!) tool for this. Java can't
>touch it.
I'm using Perl to generate DHTML pages for a medical AI diagnostic program.
It's perfect for my application; however, I'm sure that ASP, etc., are
equally suitable.
>
>By the same token, if I have to build software that requires more than
>about 50 LOC, I'll use Java. Java is an industrial strength tool
>suitable for industrial programming, Perl isn't. Yeah, web pages,
>database stuff, system administration, file manipulation, use Perl for
>this -- you really can't beat it.
>
>And ... if you look at these tasks ... they have been around for quite
>a while, and despite what I said about Perl being so 80's, it's a
>mature and well supported technology. You won't misspend your time
>gaining proficiency in Perl.
>
Someone is likely going to get on you for 'top posting' your response.
Usenet etiquette, tradition and logical discussion flow dictates that you
post your response below that to which your responding, or interspersed, as
I've done, above, to answer a specific point.
Uri Guttman
EJ> If bad programming makes a person a horrible person, I'm in much more
EJ> trouble than you are.
you don't get it. it isn't bad programming that makes one bad. it is
being a bad programmer who either doesn't know it (e.g. moronzilla) or
doesn't want to get better and try to learn from those who are good
programmers. and how do you judge the good coders? you look at a
community of them and see how they are ranked there. just like chess
ranking scores or scholarly published articles and who references them,
the perl community has coders of many skill ranges. most of the regulars
here or on other forums have proven their perl skills and knowledge and
earned their respect and ranking (regardless of their tone in most
cases). no one respects moronzilla is the point. you don't have the
skills to even judge that and you think we are crazy for denigrating its
skills.
EJ> I'm known for having a wonderful sense of humor. You ought to see my code.
coding isn't humorous. look at the lost mars probe due to a coding
error. funny, ha ha. want funny code in your medical equipment or
accurate code that was coded by a jerk you don't like? i know what i
will buy.
EJ> Again, don't be so fast feeling sorry for me. I too have had
EJ> tremendous luck in getting help resulting from my participation in
EJ> this NG, even as a lurker. As to my suggesting you were rude,
EJ> etc., on reflection, after reading some of today's nasty posts
EJ> your sarcasm probably triggered a proactive response. Sorry 'bout
EJ> that.
you used the word luck. that is the perfect choice for getting useful
help from moronzilla. even a broken clock is right twice a
day. moronzilla can answer some trivial questions correctly once in a
while. its lack of depth of understanding programming in general and
perl in specifics is astounding. ask i to analyze some algorithms
using O(N) notation. ask it how to write a protocol. ask it how to do
anything beyond kiddie text munging with substr. do you ever see it
involved in threads outside its little skill set? that is what you
should be looking at.
Jürgen Exner
>>>>>> "MD" == Michele Dondi <bik....@tiscalinet.it> writes:
>
>> 'How profoundly rude of you!' ne 'How profoundly rude you are!';
>
> michele, please don't try to teach such good logical english! you
> don't speak it natively! :)
Unfortunately my observation over the past 10+ years has been that all too
often non-native speakers care more about correct and logical use of the
language while native speakers often are quite sloppy. In particlar those
who grew up learning Americanese have a tendency to bastardize the English
language to a point where it is impossible to decode the intended meaning of
a sentence.
"England and America are two countries separated by a common language."
jue
Tad McClellan
> I've never felt insulted or offended,
> by the regulars that is.
Your feet stink!
Purl Gurl
> Uri Guttman wrote:
>>>>>>>"MD" == Michele Dondi <bik....@tiscalinet.it> writes:
>>> 'How profoundly rude of you!' ne 'How profoundly rude you are!';
>> michele, please don't try to teach such good logical english! you
>> don't speak it natively! :)
> Unfortunately my observation over the past 10+ years has been that all too
> often non-native speakers care more about correct and logical use of the
> language while native speakers often are quite sloppy. In particlar those
> who grew up learning Americanese have a tendency to bastardize the English
> language to a point where it is impossible to decode the intended meaning of
> a sentence.
This is interesting. My native tongue is not English. Nonetheless, I deliver
my message with exceptional clarity and usually direct and to the point.
My observation is a majority of native English speakers here exhibit
language skills at or below high school level. There are some regulars
here I qualify as basic functional illiterates.
Language skills quickly divulge relative intelligence level of both
speakers and writers, setting aside non-native speakers learning a
specific language. You are what you speak.
Relative intelligence derived through observed language skills is a
reflection of Perl skills as well. A good speaker will generally have
good Perl skills. Lesser language skills indicates lesser Perl skills.
Many regulars here are Perl language lawyers but upon speaking, rather
noticeable those regulars are not good Perl programmers. Knowing the
language of Perl inside and out is good. An inability to effectively
put the language of Perl to good use, is clearly not good.
Programming language lawyers are rarely good programmers.
Purl Gurl
A. Sinan Unur
news:4ip2231h8us0hlp0q...@4ax.com:
> On 14 Apr 2007 14:59:15 -0700, "Robert Hicks" <sig...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> Nice area! Have fun! No, seriously, eh!
>>>
>>
>>I thought Ruby was the "I have FUN when I program" language? : )
>
> I didn't know, but I felt compelled to search and it seems so!
> Unfortunately I don't know it, and I say "unfortunately" because from
> all accounts I've read it seems very interesting.
Every few months, I feel motivated to learn Ruby. But then I find that
the standard tutorials/books are written in a silly way. They remind me
of the BASIC tutorials that I tried to follow when I was 11 (in a
Turkish newspaper column a long, long time ago. I had a ZX81 then). I
soon gave up trying and instead learned Z80 assembly language ;-)
I must admit, I have been spoiled by the quality of Perl documentation
(and, of course, CPAN).
Don't get me wrong, a lot of people like Ruby. I just haven't been able
to motivate myself to get past the simple stuff.
Sinan
--
A. Sinan Unur <1u...@llenroc.ude.invalid>
(remove .invalid and reverse each component for email address)
comp.lang.perl.misc guidelines on the WWW:
http://augustmail.com/~tadmc/clpmisc/clpmisc_guidelines.html
Ed Jay
>>>>>> "EJ" == Ed Jay <ed...@aes-intl.com> writes:
>
> EJ> If bad programming makes a person a horrible person, I'm in much more
> EJ> trouble than you are.
>
>you don't get it. it isn't bad programming that makes one bad. it is
>being a bad programmer who either doesn't know it (e.g. moronzilla) or
>doesn't want to get better and try to learn from those who are good
>programmers.
I get it, but I was responding to another's comment. You're correct.
> and how do you judge the good coders? you look at a
>community of them and see how they are ranked there. just like chess
>ranking scores or scholarly published articles and who references them,
>the perl community has coders of many skill ranges. most of the regulars
>here or on other forums have proven their perl skills and knowledge and
>earned their respect and ranking (regardless of their tone in most
>cases).
This is how I would rate top coders or coders in academia, but not coders in
general.
>no one respects moronzilla is the point. you don't have the
>skills to even judge that and you think we are crazy for denigrating its
>skills.
When did I suggest you were crazy for denigrating her skills? If anything,
after reading a lengthy archive I'm led to question your sanity for having
continued to respond to her at all. Notwithstanding her expertise or lack
thereof with Perl, there's no question you've been trolled; however, some of
it seems retaliatory in nature.
>
> EJ> I'm known for having a wonderful sense of humor. You ought to see my code.
>
>coding isn't humorous. look at the lost mars probe due to a coding
>error. funny, ha ha. want funny code in your medical equipment or
>accurate code that was coded by a jerk you don't like? i know what i
>will buy.
There you go again putting words into my mouth. Who said I thought anyone
was a jerk, or that I didn't like someone? I didn't. Puhleeze, do us each a
favor...
>
>you used the word luck. that is the perfect choice for getting useful
>help from moronzilla.
Then, I had good luck, 'cause as I've reiterated...the advice I received
helped me.
> even a broken clock is right twice a
>day. moronzilla can answer some trivial questions correctly once in a
>while. its lack of depth of understanding programming in general and
>perl in specifics is astounding. ask i to analyze some algorithms
>using O(N) notation. ask it how to write a protocol. ask it how to do
>anything beyond kiddie text munging with substr. do you ever see it
>involved in threads outside its little skill set? that is what you
>should be looking at.
>
I'm pretty sure I understand and appreciate where your hostility is coming
from. But, I'm confused why an intelligent guy like you would allow someone
you detest so and whose opinion you think so lowly of to push your buttons.
You ask her to analyze an algorithm and she doesn't respond. Boom...you go
ballistic and she laughs and calls you names. I'm going to do you a favor
and offer you some assistance...read what I post below my signature and read
<http://www.edbjay.com/unskilled.pdf>. Hopefully, you too will get it.
Ed Jay
TAKING OFFENSE (By Mary Baker Eddy)
There is immense wisdom in the old proverb, "He that is slow to anger is
better than the mighty." Hannah More said, "If I wished to punish my enemy,
I should make him hate somebody."
To punish ourselves for others' faults, is superlative folly. The mental
arrow shot from another's bow is so practically harmless, unless our own
thought barb it. It is our pride that makes another's criticism rankle, our
self-will that makes another's deed offensive, our egotism that feels hurt
by another's self-assertion. Well may we feel wounded by our own faults; but
we can hardly afford to be miserable for the faults of others.
A courtier told Constantine that a mob had broken the head of his statue
with stones. The emperor lifted his hands to his head, saying, "It is very
surprising, but I don't feel hurt in the least."
We should remember that the world is wide; that there are a thousand million
different human wills, opinions, ambitions, tastes, and loves; that each
person has a different history, constitution, culture, character, from all
the rest; that human life is the work, the play, the ceaseless action and
reaction upon each other of these different atoms. Then, we should go forth
into life with the smallest expectations, but with the largest patience;
with a keen relish for and appreciation of everything beautiful, great, and
good, but with a temper so genial that the friction of the world shall not
wear upon our sensibilities; with an equanimity so settled that no passing
breath nor accidental disturbance shall agitate or ruffle it; with a charity
broad enough to cover the whole world's evil, and sweet enough to neutralize
what is bitter in it,—determined not to be offended when no wrong is meant,
nor even when it is, unless the offense be against God.
Nothing short of our own errors should offend us. He who can willfully
attempt to injure another, is an object of pity rather than of resentment;
while it is a question in my mind, whether there is enough of a flatterer, a
fool, or a liar, to offend a whole-souled person.
Uri Guttman
EJ> I'm pretty sure I understand and appreciate where your hostility
EJ> is coming from. But, I'm confused why an intelligent guy like you
EJ> would allow someone you detest so and whose opinion you think so
EJ> lowly of to push your buttons. You ask her to analyze an
EJ> algorithm and she doesn't respond. Boom...you go ballistic and she
EJ> laughs and calls you names. I'm going to do you a favor and offer
EJ> you some assistance...read what I post below my signature and read
EJ> <http://www.edbjay.com/unskilled.pdf>. Hopefully, you too will get
EJ> it.
simple. i care about perl and having people learn perl well. it posts
stupid and wrong code and disparages the perl community with its
blatherings. i don't get my buttons pushed as much as stand up to it and
hopefully make sure others (like yourself) don't get suckered in by its
trolling. call it defense of this newsgroup against the forces of
moronic and delusional posters. sometimes it get dirty but the job has
to be done.
EJ> Ed Jay
EJ> There is immense wisdom in the old proverb, "He that is slow to
EJ> anger is better than the mighty." Hannah More said, "If I wished
EJ> to punish my enemy, I should make him hate somebody."
oh, i don't hate moronzilla. i hate what it stands for. i am appalled
that my chosen profession is so easy to enter with so little actual
skill. you wouldn't hire a doctor or lawyer with the level of skills you
see in newbies or moronzilla. and too many of them work and screw things
up and i am brought it to help clean up the mess. better to hire someone
who knows what they are doing to begin with than cheap kiddies who are
always over their heads. that is what i despise.
Ed Jay
>>>>>> "EJ" == Ed Jay <ed...@aes-intl.com> writes:
> EJ> I'm pretty sure I understand and appreciate where your hostility
> EJ> is coming from...why
>
>simple. i care about perl and having people learn perl well. it posts
>stupid and wrong code and disparages the perl community with its
>blatherings. i don't get my buttons pushed as much as stand up to it and
>hopefully make sure others (like yourself) don't get suckered in by its
>trolling. call it defense of this newsgroup against the forces of
>moronic and delusional posters. sometimes it get dirty but the job has
>to be done.
You do the job well. :-)
>
> EJ> There is immense wisdom in the old proverb, "He that is slow to
> EJ> anger is better than the mighty." Hannah More said, "If I wished
> EJ> to punish my enemy, I should make him hate somebody."
>
>oh, i don't hate moronzilla. i hate what it stands for. i am appalled
>that my chosen profession is so easy to enter with so little actual
>skill.
Hatred is hatred and is counter-productive. Appalled is appropriate.
> you wouldn't hire a doctor or lawyer with the level of skills you
>see in newbies or moronzilla. and too many of them work and screw things
>up and i am brought it to help clean up the mess.
I would think that for many programmers, the more there is to clean up the
better it is. Income wise. That said, I have no idea what the market is
these days for Perl programmers, other than I don't see Perl mentioned as
qualification criteria for web developer jobs (My wife's occupation. I see
the ads.)
>better to hire someone
>who knows what they are doing to begin with than cheap kiddies who are
>always over their heads. that is what i despise.
>
I agree, except for cases like mine. I'm doing this because I enjoy doing
it. I know that I'm over my head, but I'm enjoying learning. My scripts are
pretty simple and apparently my code structure resembles C. I don't use
'strict' or 'my' or 'our.' But my scripts do as I want them to do, so I'm
temporarily happy. Like you, I'd much prefer perfection; however, I'm forced
to settle for function before beauty.
Thank you for the warning.
Charlton Wilbur
EJ> As a struggling Perl newbie, I derive little encouragement to
EJ> pursue my education from your statements. Perhaps it's time
EJ> for me to go down a different programming path while I'm still
EJ> embryonic.
If you take Purl Gurl seriously, you ought to be encouraged to go down
a different career path altogether.
EJ> Perl isn't offered in the BSc/CS curriculum? That speaks
EJ> loudly to me. I tried to take a course in Perl at my local
EJ> junior college, but it's not offered.
That's because the educational curriculum focuses on tools that
attempt to inculcate good programming habits or that demonstrate
particular techniques. Perl does neither.
Your goal in acquiring an education (which is what a BS is) ought to
be to acquire a solid grounding in the theory underlying your
profession. If you want vocational training in particular languages
-- which is not what a BS is about -- there are a number of excellent
consultancies that will teach you, whether the language in question is
Perl or Java.
EJ> How profoundly rude, indeed! Having lurked here for a couple
EJ> of months, the offensive response was expected from the NG
EJ> regular. As are set of similar comments, by many of the people
EJ> in the OP's list. Look at the blatant hypocrisy in the
EJ> above. Does anyone really think that this type of response
EJ> provides assistance or fosters a desire to further participate
EJ> in this forum? Or, to learn and perpetuate this programming
EJ> language?
I recommend, first, that you pay attention to the Posting Guidelines,
and pay attention to how many people who follow the Posting Guidelines
get flamed and treated rudely compared to how many people who do not
follow them. There's a reason they exist.
I recommend, second, that if you intend to continue in any technical
field, that you develop the skill to learn by yourself by studying the
documentation. If you develop that skill, you are responsible for
your own success; if you fail to develop that skill, you make yourself
permanently dependent on the benevolence and donated time of others.
In situations where neither is available in sufficient quantity --
such as this newsgroup -- you lose out.
Charlton
--
Charlton Wilbur
cwi...@chromatico.net
Charlton Wilbur
UG> oh, i don't hate moronzilla. i hate what it stands for. i am
UG> appalled that my chosen profession is so easy to enter with so
UG> little actual skill. you wouldn't hire a doctor or lawyer with
UG> the level of skills you see in newbies or moronzilla. and too
UG> many of them work and screw things up and i am brought it to
UG> help clean up the mess. better to hire someone who knows what
UG> they are doing to begin with than cheap kiddies who are always
UG> over their heads. that is what i despise.
It's hardly surprising.
To call yourself a doctor, you need several years of education,
professional certification, and a current license. If you act as a
doctor without all of these things, you go to jail. If you do the
wrong thing as a doctor when you should have known otherwise, you pay
considerable money as damages.
To call yourself a lawyer, you need several years of education,
professional certifiation, and membership in a professional legal
association. If you act as a lawyer without all of these things, you
are heavily fined, or you go to jail. If you do the wrong thing as a
lawyer when you should have known otherwise, you are heavily fined, or
you go to jail.
To call yourself a computer programmer, you don't even need to be able
to operate the computer. You can get hired and paid as a computer
programmer with no qualification whatsoever, and you can continue in
the job regardless of skill. If you do the wrong thing as a computer
scientist when you should have known otherwise, you get promoted to
management and given a bigger budget.
Peter J. Holzer
> On 16 Mar, "The Count" wrote:
>>Im a BSc4 Maths/Computer Science student and would like to find out
>>the best way to learn programming in perl.Perl is not offered in my
>>course but I find that it is a very popular language.I can program in
>>Pascal,Delphi and C++...
>
Doesn't speak at all to me. When I was at the university, there wasn't
a single course in the curriculum which was touted as a "language
course". Of course you learned Modula II in the "introduction to
programming" course and you learned C in the "systems programming"
course for the simple reason that these were the languages which you
had to use for the exercises, but that wasn't the actual goal of the
course, and the choice of language certainly wasn't that the language
should be in wide-spread use in "the industry". I don't think Modula was
much used outside of academia at the time, while (Turbo) Pascal or Basic
were quite popular (and I don't think there was a Basic course on the
whole university. The electrical engineers used Pascal for their
programming 101 course). The only language which we were "strongly
encouraged" to learn because we "would need it" was COBOL. Never needed
that again :-).
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 Sat, 14 Apr 2007 09:19:47 -0700, Ed Jay <ed...@aes-intl.com> wrote:
>
>>>Did schools like MIT or Stanford ever offer a "regular" course in
>>>Perl? Please enlighten me on this because I never applied to either
>>>of these schools.
>>
>>I don't know, but I have seen classes offered in javascript, Java, VB,
>>C++ and others. I would have thought that if Perl is as popular as
>>we'd like to believe, it too would be offered.
>
> As I wrote in my other post, I don't think so. Even if Perl were many
> many times more popular than it actually is. I think that it's a good
> thing people will learn how to program with Java. Then they will
> stumble upon Perl and say: whoa, so I don't have to create a whole
> class just to print "hello, world"?
I'm not sure. I learned programming with BASIC (real BASIC, with GOTO
and GOSUB and two-character variable names, not some newfangled
dialect), and while I would probably have coped with Java, the quick
sense of achievement you get from
10 print "hello, world"
is something that is important to the beginner.
I never taught perl to beginners, but I think it's a rather good
educational language: You can start with "baby perl" (as Horshack calls
it) and gradually introduce more and more advanced features (the perfect
time to introduce "use strict" and "use warnings" is when your students
can't find a mistyped variable - don't put it into their first "hello
world" program).
Also if you only know Java (and similar languages), you probably won't
appreciate perl (I know it took me some time to get used to it, and I
did know sh and awk in addition to C, Modula, Fortran, etc.). You will
dismiss it as a toy for small scripts, and not accept it as an
"industrial strength" language because it isn't compiled, doesn't do
typechecking, and isn't supported by CASE tools.
Michele Dondi
<cwi...@chromatico.net> wrote:
>To call yourself a doctor, you need several years of education,
>professional certification, and a current license. If you act as a
>doctor without all of these things, you go to jail. If you do the
>wrong thing as a doctor when you should have known otherwise, you pay
>considerable money as damages.
Well, not always. Not necessarily. Unfortunately. But point taken.
>To call yourself a lawyer, you need several years of education,
>professional certifiation, and membership in a professional legal
>association. If you act as a lawyer without all of these things, you
>are heavily fined, or you go to jail. If you do the wrong thing as a
>lawyer when you should have known otherwise, you are heavily fined, or
>you go to jail.
Well, not always. Not necessarily. Unfortunately. But point taken.
>To call yourself a computer programmer, you don't even need to be able
>to operate the computer. You can get hired and paid as a computer
>programmer with no qualification whatsoever, and you can continue in
Well, isn't this the nice part of this world? Seriously, I think it
is.
>the job regardless of skill. If you do the wrong thing as a computer
>scientist when you should have known otherwise, you get promoted to
>management and given a bigger budget.
$Quote->To('.sig');
Michele Dondi
<hjp-u...@hjp.at> wrote:
>Also if you only know Java (and similar languages), you probably won't
>appreciate perl (I know it took me some time to get used to it, and I
>did know sh and awk in addition to C, Modula, Fortran, etc.). You will
>dismiss it as a toy for small scripts, and not accept it as an
>"industrial strength" language because it isn't compiled, doesn't do
>typechecking, and isn't supported by CASE tools.
We only have to be patient and wait some more. Then we will be able to
dismiss these objections. For the moment we can do:
pugs> sub postfix:<!> (Int $n) { [*] 1..$n }
undef
pugs> say 42!;
1405006117752879898543142606244511569936384000000000
Bool::True
:-)
cart...@gmail.com
> Someone is likely going to get on you for 'top posting' your response.
> Usenet etiquette, tradition and logical discussion flow dictates that you
> post your response below that to which your responding, or interspersed, as
> I've done, above, to answer a specific point.
I started with usenet in the days of the rubber cushions used to
cradle a telephone handset. You paid for connection time by the
minute, it it wasn't cheap. In the days of the 9600 baud modem, you
needed to make every line count. In that environment, bottom posters
were cursed. I mean this literally. The rule was, don't repeat what
someone else has already said unless absolutely essential to
understanding. In the case of my top post, nothing anyone else said is
essential to understanding anything I said. So ... no need to bottom
post.
CC
A. Sinan Unur
> On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 15:16:00 +0200, "Peter J. Holzer"
> <hjp-u...@hjp.at> wrote:
>
>>Also if you only know Java (and similar languages), you probably won't
>>appreciate perl (I know it took me some time to get used to it, and I
>>did know sh and awk in addition to C, Modula, Fortran, etc.). You will
>>dismiss it as a toy for small scripts, and not accept it as an
>>"industrial strength" language because it isn't compiled, doesn't do
>>typechecking, and isn't supported by CASE tools.
>
> We only have to be patient and wait some more. Then we will be able to
> dismiss these objections. For the moment we can do:
>
> pugs> sub postfix:<!> (Int $n) { [*] 1..$n }
> undef
> pugs> say 42!;
> 1405006117752879898543142606244511569936384000000000
> Bool::True
>
>:-)
:-))) indeed. I might be convinced to learn something new after all.
Peter J. Holzer
> On Apr 14, 8:52 pm, Ed Jay <e...@aes-intl.com> wrote:
>> Someone is likely going to get on you for 'top posting' your
>> response.
>
> cradle a telephone handset. You paid for connection time by the
> minute, it it wasn't cheap. In the days of the 9600 baud modem, you
> needed to make every line count. In that environment, bottom posters
> were cursed. I mean this literally. The rule was, don't repeat what
> someone else has already said unless absolutely essential to
> understanding. In the case of my top post, nothing anyone else said is
> essential to understanding anything I said. So ... no need to bottom
> post.
Bandwidth is cheap now, but human time isn't. If you quote stuff
unnecessarily, lots of people will read it and curse you because you've
wasted their time instead of taking a few seconds to trim the quoting
to the relevant parts. After some time they will stop cursing and
killfile you instead.
Ed Jay
>On Apr 14, 8:52 pm, Ed Jay <e...@aes-intl.com> wrote:
>> Someone is likely going to get on you for 'top posting' your response.
>> Usenet etiquette, tradition and logical discussion flow dictates that you
>> post your response below that to which your responding, or interspersed, as
>> I've done, above, to answer a specific point.
>
>I started with usenet in the days of the rubber cushions used to
>cradle a telephone handset. You paid for connection time by the
>minute, it it wasn't cheap. In the days of the 9600 baud modem, you
>needed to make every line count.
You're just a kid. 9600 baud? I was around for the 110 baud audio-coupled
modems. In those days we didn't post at all. :-)
I wasn't aware that Usenet was around in the early 70's.
>In that environment, bottom posters
>were cursed. I mean this literally. The rule was, don't repeat what
>someone else has already said unless absolutely essential to
>understanding.
I spent a lot of time on bbs's, and that was the rule.
>In the case of my top post, nothing anyone else said is
>essential to understanding anything I said. So ... no need to bottom
>post.
>
Ed Jay
>>>>>> "EJ" == Ed Jay <ed...@aes-intl.com> writes:
>
> EJ> As a struggling Perl newbie, I derive little encouragement to
> EJ> pursue my education from your statements. Perhaps it's time
> EJ> for me to go down a different programming path while I'm still
> EJ> embryonic.
>
>If you take Purl Gurl seriously, you ought to be encouraged to go down
>a different career path altogether.
I take anyone seriously who appears to be offering me a helping hand when I
need it.
By way of clarification I am not seeking a career path. I wish I were, but
at 65, and already possessing a doctorate in physics, I think it's time to
take it a bit easier than I have in the past. :-)
What I am doing is rewriting an application I wrote in Z80 assembly years
ago. I'm writing it as a web-based application and I chose Perl as my SS
system.
>
> EJ> Perl isn't offered in the BSc/CS curriculum? That speaks
> EJ> loudly to me. I tried to take a course in Perl at my local
> EJ> junior college, but it's not offered.
>
>That's because the educational curriculum focuses on tools that
>attempt to inculcate good programming habits or that demonstrate
>particular techniques. Perl does neither.
>
Understood.
> EJ> How profoundly rude, indeed! ...
>
>I recommend, first, that you pay attention to the Posting Guidelines,
>and pay attention to how many people who follow the Posting Guidelines
>get flamed and treated rudely compared to how many people who do not
>follow them. There's a reason they exist.
It appears to me that you are using an excuse to substitute for a reason why
it's OK to be rude. Your point is well made, but I still see no good reason
for anyone to be rude or offensive. Difference of opinion.
>
>I recommend, second, that if you intend to continue in any technical
>field, that you develop the skill to learn by yourself by studying the
>documentation. If you develop that skill, you are responsible for
>your own success; if you fail to develop that skill, you make yourself
>permanently dependent on the benevolence and donated time of others.
>In situations where neither is available in sufficient quantity --
>such as this newsgroup -- you lose out.
>
I agree with you same as I did when PG made the same observation. ;-)
Ed Jay
>On 2007-04-14 07:34, Ed Jay <ed...@aes-intl.com> wrote:
>> On 16 Mar, "The Count" wrote:
>>>Im a BSc4 Maths/Computer Science student and would like to find out
>>>the best way to learn programming in perl.Perl is not offered in my
>>>course but I find that it is a very popular language.I can program in
>>>Pascal,Delphi and C++...
>>
>> Perl isn't offered in the BSc/CS curriculum? That speaks loudly to me.
>
>Doesn't speak at all to me. When I was at the university, there wasn't
>a single course in the curriculum which was touted as a "language
>course". Of course you learned Modula II in the "introduction to
>programming" course and you learned C in the "systems programming"
>course for the simple reason that these were the languages which you
>had to use for the exercises, but that wasn't the actual goal of the
>course, and the choice of language certainly wasn't that the language
>should be in wide-spread use in "the industry". I don't think Modula was
>much used outside of academia at the time, while (Turbo) Pascal or Basic
>were quite popular (and I don't think there was a Basic course on the
>whole university. The electrical engineers used Pascal for their
>programming 101 course). The only language which we were "strongly
>encouraged" to learn because we "would need it" was COBOL. Never needed
>that again :-).
>
When I went to school there were no computer classes, let alone programming
courses. I remember in the early 60's being sent by my employer to UCLA for
a three-day course in 'software.'
Thank you. I appreciate your advice and as I said, I wish I were young
enough to use it all.
Vincent Vercauteren
> Most contributors to comp.lang.perl.misc are helpful and share good
> information. Unfortunately there are a few individuals who are
> frequently rude and abusive. For their bad behavior they are hereby
> named the Top Turds of comp.lang.perl.misc for 2007.
>
> 7. Jürgen Exner jurg...@hotmail.com
> Generally okay but occasionally throws tantrums
>
> 6. Tad McClellan ta...@augustmail.com
> Never learned how to get along with others
>
> 5. Purl Gurl purl...@purlgurl.net
> Nuff said!
>
> 4. A. Sinan Unur as...@cornell.edu
> Luckily the a.sinine one has been absent for a while
>
> 3. Michele Dondi bla...@lcm.mi.infn.it
> Surely one of the rudest Italians ever!
>
> 2. Uri Guttman u...@stemsystems.com
> Start using the Shift key, dumb ass. Quit hyping your pathetic
> File::Slurp module so much. And cut out the whining!
>
> And the stinkiest turd of all...
>
> 1. Sherm Pendley sh...@dot-app.org
> This arrogant asshole seems to think he has all the answers and is
> consistently condescending and bullying. Undoubtedly one of the most
> obnoxious posters in the history of the group.
>
Hi,
I've been reading along in this group for about 2 years now. Meanwhile,
my Perl programming has evolved from 'absolute beginner' to
'imtermediate level'. I'm involved in a couple of Perl projects at work,
and every now and then something comes up that I seem to be unable to
solve using the documentation.
But I've never dared to post any question on this group yet, fearing
that the slightest mistake I'd make against the posting guidelines or
other rules might be inflammatory.
While I of course understand that there are rules to be followed,
especially since information is provided on a voluntary basis, I really
don't think the attitude in some peoples responses is justified.
The regulars here that seem to repeatedly suggest that newcomers are
scared away, are actually right.
There surely must be more polite ways of handling bad questions.
Because of this attitude, this is my first ever, and my last ever post
on this group.
Kind regards,
Vincent Vercauteren
Belgian Perl programmer
Tad McClellan
> So ... no need to bottom
> post.
Unless you want to be heard.
Purl Gurl
> cartercc wrote:
>> So ... no need to bottom post.
> Unless you want to be heard.
When I respond to a top posted article,
I simply cut the top posting then paste
the post in correct chronological order.
I have no problem with top posters.
What is your problem?
Purl Gurl
Purl Gurl
> perl-2007 wrote:
(snipped)
>> Most contributors to comp.lang.perl.misc are helpful and share good
>> information. Unfortunately there are a few individuals who are
>> frequently rude and abusive. For their bad behavior they are hereby
>> named the Top Turds of comp.lang.perl.misc for 2007.
> I've been reading along in this group for about 2 years now. Meanwhile,
> But I've never dared to post any question on this group yet, fearing
> that the slightest mistake I'd make against the posting guidelines or
> other rules might be inflammatory.
> The regulars here that seem to repeatedly suggest that newcomers are
> scared away, are actually right.
> Because of this attitude, this is my first ever, and my last ever post
> on this group.
Come on, stick around! Do not allow those childish boys
to run you off. They are just no-count bozos.
Continue to exercise your Freedom of Speech!
These bozos around here hold no authority, zero authority.
Simply laugh them off. Those bozos are of no importance
and have no affect upon your life. They are actually comical!
Purl Gurl
cart...@gmail.com
> Unless you want to be heard.
Lot less chance of being heard if you post your pithy two lines after
quoting 500 lines of someone else's drivel.
If your post is clear without reference to a prior post, then you
SHOULD top post. If your post needs a reference to other material for
clarity, the quote only what you need to.
You and I have crossed paths on this several times. Frankly, I find
your insistence that everything be bottom posted regardless of context
juvenile and immature. I know you don't agree, and I won't attempt to
change your mind. If the consequence of my top posting means that you
won't be reading my posts, I can live with that. I don't need you
telling me how to post on usenet.
CC
Jürgen Exner
> On Apr 15, 6:39 pm, Tad McClellan <t...@augustmail.com> wrote:
>> Unless you want to be heard.
>
> Lot less chance of being heard if you post your pithy two lines after
> quoting 500 lines of someone else's drivel.
Bollocks. Why would you quote 500 lines of drivel?
> If your post is clear without reference to a prior post, then you
> SHOULD top post.
Well, in that case top post and bottom post would be identical because you
wouldn't quote anything anyway, wouldn't you?
> If your post needs a reference to other material for
> clarity, the quote only what you need to.
Sounds like an excellent idea to me. Seems we are actually in perfect
agreement then?
jue
Abigail
MCMXCIII in <URL:news:1176658282.7...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>:
Odd.
In the 20 years I've been posting to Usenet, top-posting was never the rule.
In fact, in the "early days", it was so uncommon people didn't even discuss,
let alone defend it.
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=>MCMXCIII=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>'
Peter J. Holzer
> On Apr 15, 6:39 pm, Tad McClellan <t...@augustmail.com> wrote:
>> Unless you want to be heard.
>
> Lot less chance of being heard if you post your pithy two lines after
> quoting 500 lines of someone else's drivel.
> Frankly, I find your insistence that everything be bottom posted
> regardless of context juvenile and immature.
I don't think Tad ever insisted that you should quote everything and add
your comments below that. He doesn't do it himself.
> If your post is clear without reference to a prior post, then you
> SHOULD top post.
No, then you should start a new thread.
> If your post needs a reference to other material for clarity, the
> quote only what you need to.
Right. That's what Tad does and I find it hard to believe that would
advise others to the contrary.
Michele Dondi
>If your post is clear without reference to a prior post, then you
>SHOULD top post. If your post needs a reference to other material for
>clarity, the quote only what you need to.
>
>You and I have crossed paths on this several times. Frankly, I find
>your insistence that everything be bottom posted regardless of context
>juvenile and immature. I know you don't agree, and I won't attempt to
>change your mind. If the consequence of my top posting means that you
>won't be reading my posts, I can live with that. I don't need you
>telling me how to post on usenet.
I think Tad, just like most people here, has never advocated *bottom
posting*, but as you *rightly* wrote, to only "quote what you need
to". Personally I think that *alway* adds clarity to a post which is
in reply to some other one.
Michele Dondi
<jurg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Lot less chance of being heard if you post your pithy two lines after
>> quoting 500 lines of someone else's drivel.
>
>Bollocks. Why would you quote 500 lines of drivel?
Also, who ever said one should do so? Certainly not Tad!
>> If your post needs a reference to other material for
>> clarity, the quote only what you need to.
>
>Sounds like an excellent idea to me. Seems we are actually in perfect
>agreement then?
The difference being that apparently from the POV of the person you're
replying to there are situations in which a post *doesn't* need a
reference to other material for clarity, which is an idea that I don't
buy, as far as a folloup is concerned: more precisely I can't remember
having found a single instance in which this would have been the case.
Michele Dondi
><> I started with usenet in the days of the rubber cushions used to
[snip]
>Odd.
>
>In the 20 years I've been posting to Usenet, top-posting was never the rule.
>In fact, in the "early days", it was so uncommon people didn't even discuss,
>let alone defend it.
According to <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet> he may have some
six years of advantage on you. Has he? Who knows?!?
Tad McClellan
> On Apr 15, 6:39 pm, Tad McClellan <t...@augustmail.com> wrote:
>> Unless you want to be heard.
Unless what?
The statement is senseless without its context.
> Lot less chance of being heard if you post your pithy two lines after
> quoting 500 lines of someone else's drivel.
That's true, but why do you bring that up?
I did not advocate bottom posting.
> If your post is clear without reference to a prior post, then you
> SHOULD top post.
If it is unrelated to other posts in the thread, then it should
be in a new thread.
> If your post needs a reference to other material for
> clarity, the quote only what you need to.
Exactly so.
> Frankly, I find
> your insistence that everything be bottom posted
I have never insisted that! Can you cite even once where I have?
I have insisted that you post in the accepted manner, quote, trim
and interleave.
> If the consequence of my top posting means that you
> won't be reading my posts, I can live with that.
I expect so, but it isn't just me. It is the way preferred by
everybody here (and nearly everybody elsewhere).
If you can live with everybody not reading your posts, what is
the point of writing them?
> I don't need you
> telling me how to post on usenet.
Your insistence on ignoring the social moors of your audience
has become tedious.
Tad McClellan
> I don't need you
> telling me how to post on usenet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_In_Rome
This is Rome.
Charlton Wilbur
EJ> How profoundly rude, indeed! ...
>> I recommend, first, that you pay attention to the Posting
>> Guidelines, and pay attention to how many people who follow the
>> Posting Guidelines get flamed and treated rudely compared to
>> how many people who do not follow them. There's a reason they
>> exist.
EJ> It appears to me that you are using an excuse to substitute
EJ> for a reason why it's OK to be rude. Your point is well made,
EJ> but I still see no good reason for anyone to be rude or
EJ> offensive. Difference of opinion.
Exactly. I see no good reason for anyone to be rude or offensive; the
Posting Guidelines define, at least for the knowledgeable people in
this group, what constitutes rude and offensive behavior.
If you come in here and ask for the documentation to be read to you,
you're being incredibly rude. If you come in here babbling with 'u'
and 'ur' and 'y' and 'ne1' in place of English words, you're being
incredibly rude.
The regulars are just responding in kind, in a form the original
poster is likely to actually recognize as rudeness.
Charlton Wilbur
PJH> When I was at the university, there wasn't a single course in
PJH> the curriculum which was touted as a "language course". Of
PJH> course you learned Modula II in the "introduction to
PJH> programming" course and you learned C in the "systems
PJH> programming" course for the simple reason that these were the
PJH> languages which you had to use for the exercises, but that
PJH> wasn't the actual goal of the course, and the choice of
PJH> language certainly wasn't that the language should be in
PJH> wide-spread use in "the industry".
Likewise. In my case, one learned Pascal as the introductory
language, and that was the end of formal language instruction. And
that was principally a matter of convenience, because Pascal was
sufficiently powerful to teach the basic concepts and sufficiently
expressive that a Pascalish pseudocode could be used to express
algorithms and data structures.
There was also a course in programming languages, where the semester
consisted of learning the rudiments of 8 programming languages besides
Pascal and then talking about how the odd features of each programming
language affected things like parsing the language, compiling,
tradeoffs between things that could be determined at compile-time
versus things that could be determined at run-time, early binding
versus late binding, and so on.
And in a few of the courses, there was an admonition that sample code
and library code would be provided in a particular language (for
Artificial Intelligence, Lisp; for Software Engineering, C++; for
Parallel Computation, ML) and that although no particular language was
required in the coursework, students wishing to perform acceptably
well in those courses ought to familiarize themselves with the
language in the first week or so of the semester even if they intended
to work in other languages and environments.
This did not do good things for my resume; I cannot point and say
"Look, I took a college class in C++." On the other hand, within a
week of starting my current employment, I was debugging ColdFusion
errors that people who had had Official Macromedia Training Courses
could not figure out, so it must have done some good.
Charlton Wilbur
MD> On 15 Apr 2007 07:00:35 -0400, Charlton Wilbur
MD> <cwi...@chromatico.net> wrote:
>> To call yourself a computer programmer, you don't even need to
>> be able to operate the computer. You can get hired and paid as
>> a computer programmer with no qualification whatsoever, and you
>> can continue in the job regardless of skill.
MD> Well, isn't this the nice part of this world? Seriously, I
MD> think it is.
When I think about recreational and research programming, and the fact
that someone with no credentials but a lot of skill and knowledge can
do well.
When I think about the past few places I've worked, where the hiring
managers could not discern between a competent programmer and (as near
as I could tell) a potted plant, and the potted plant frequently got
hired instead of the competent programmer, I'm not so sure.
When I was an undergraduate, it was rapidly apparent to me that 2/3 of
the people in the world were incompetent and either unaware of that
fact or too lazy to do anything about it; the other 1/3 of people were
doing three times as much work as they needed to to make up for the
other 2/3, plus a healthy dose of undoing poorly done things. When I
got into the IT world, it seemed like I underestimated by an order of
magnitude. Requiring credentials and certification -- at least
*meaningful* credentials and certification, and there's a whole other
can of worms -- or making software engineers legally and
professionally liable for things they approve of, in the way that
engineers in the physical world are legally and professionally liable,
would go a long way.
>> If you do the wrong thing as a computer scientist when you
>> should have known otherwise, you get promoted to management and
>> given a bigger budget.
MD> $Quote->To('.sig');
Alas, it seems as though my principal mark on the world will be as a
creator of .sig-worthy aphorisms.
Ed Jay
>When I was an undergraduate, it was rapidly apparent to me that 2/3 of
>the people in the world were incompetent and either unaware of that
>fact or too lazy to do anything about it...
January 18, 2000 (New York Times et al)
Among the Inept, Researchers Discover Ignorance Is Bliss
By Erica Goode
There are many incompetent people in the world. Dr. David A. Dunning is
haunted by the fear he might be one of them.
Dr. Dunning, a professor of psychology at Cornell, worries about this
because, according to his research, most incompetent people do not know
that they are incompetent.
On the contrary. People who do things badly, Dr. Dunning has found in
studies conducted with a graduate student, Justin Kruger, are usually
supremely confident of their abilities -- more confident, in fact, than
people who do things well.
Humor-impaired joke-tellers rated themselves as funny.
"I began to think that there were probably lots of things that I was bad
at and I didn't know it," Dr. Dunning said.
One reason that the ignorant also tend to be the blissfully self-assured,
the researchers believe, is that the skills required for competence often
are the same skills necessary to recognize competence.
The incompetent, therefore, suffer doubly, they suggested in a paper
appearing in the December issue of the Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology.
"Not only do they reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate
choices, but their incompetence robs them of the ability to realize it,"
wrote Dr. Kruger, now an assistant professor at the University of
Illinois, and Dr. Dunning.
This deficiency in "self-monitoring skills," the researchers said, helps
explain the tendency of the humor-impaired to persist in telling jokes
that are not funny, of day traders to repeatedly jump into the market --
and repeatedly lose out -- and of the politically clueless to continue
holding forth at dinner parties on the fine points of campaign strategy.
Some college students, Dr. Dunning said, evince a similar blindness: after
doing badly on a test, they spend hours in his office, explaining why the
answers he suggests for the test questions are wrong.
In a series of studies, Dr. Kruger and Dr. Dunning tested their theory of
incompetence. They found that subjects who scored in the lowest quartile
on tests of logic, English grammar and humor were also the most likely to
"grossly overestimate" how well they had performed.
In all three tests, subjects' ratings of their ability were positively
linked to their actual scores. But the lowest-ranked participants showed
much greater distortions in their self-estimates. Asked to evaluate their
performance on the test of logical reasoning, for example, subjects who
scored only in the 12th percentile guessed that they had scored in the
62nd percentile, and deemed their overall skill at logical reasoning to be
at the 68th percentile.
Similarly, subjects who scored at the 10th percentile on the grammar test
ranked themselves at the 67th percentile in the ability to "identify
grammatically correct standard English," and estimated their test scores
to be at the 61st percentile.
On the humor test, in which participants were asked to rate jokes
according to their funniness (subjects' ratings were matched against those
of an "expert" panel of professional comedians), low-scoring subjects were
also more apt to have an inflated perception of their skill. But because
humor is idiosyncratically defined, the researchers said, the results were
less conclusive.
Unlike their unskilled counterparts, the most able subjects in the study,
Dr. Kruger and Dr. Dunning found, were likely to underestimate their own
competence. The researchers attributed this to the fact that, in the
absence of information about how others were doing, highly competent
subjects assumed that others were performing as well as they were -- a
phenomenon psychologists term the "false consensus effect."
When high scoring subjects were asked to "grade" the grammar tests of
their peers, however, they quickly revised their evaluations of their own
performance. In contrast, the self-assessments of those who scored badly
themselves were unaffected by the experience of grading others; some
subjects even further inflated their estimates of their own abilities.
"Incompetent individuals were less able to recognize competence in
others," the researchers concluded.
In a final experiment, Dr. Dunning and Dr. Kruger set out to discover if
training would help modify the exaggerated self-perceptions of incapable
subjects. In fact, a short training session in logical reasoning did
improve the ability of low-scoring subjects to assess their performance
realistically, they found.
The findings, the psychologists said, support Thomas Jefferson's assertion
that "he who knows best knows how little he knows."
And the research meshes neatly with other work indicating that
overconfidence is a common; studies have found, for example, that the vast
majority of people rate themselves as "above average" on a wide array of
abilities -- though such an abundance of talent would be impossible in
statistical terms. And this overestimation, studies indicate, is more
likely for tasks that are difficult than for those that are easy.
Such studies are not without critics. Dr. David C. Funder, a psychology
professor at the University of California at Riverside, for example, said
he suspected that most lay people had only a vague idea of the meaning of
"average" in statistical terms.
"I'm not sure the average person thinks of 'average' or 'percentile' in
quite that literal a sense," Dr. Funder said, "so 'above average' might
mean to them 'pretty good,' or 'O.K.,' or 'doing all right.' And if, in
fact, people mean something subjective when they use the word, then it's
really hard to evaluate whether they're right or wrong using the
statistical criterion."
But Dr. Dunning said his current research and past studies indicated that
there were many reasons why people would tend to overestimate their
competency, and not be aware of it.
In some cases, Dr. Dunning pointed out, an awareness of one's own
inability is inevitable: "In a golf game, when your ball is heading into
the woods, you know you're incompetent," he said.
But in other situations, feedback is absent, or at least more ambiguous;
even a humorless joke, for example, is likely to be met with polite
laughter. And faced with incompetence, social norms prevent most people
from blurting out "You stink!" -- truthful though this assessment may be.
All of which inspired in Dr. Dunning and his co-author, in presenting
their research to the public, a certain degree of nervousness.
"This article may contain faulty logic, methodological errors or poor
communication," they cautioned in their journal report. "Let us assure our
readers that to the extent this article is imperfect, it is not a sin we
have committed knowingly."
Michele Dondi
<ta...@augustmail.com> wrote:
>If you can live with everybody not reading your posts, what is
>the point of writing them?
Your logical premise is fallacious. You bet there will be hordes of
l33t n00bz courtesy of GG reading them, and thinking that this is a
very nice *forum*.
Michele Dondi
<cwi...@chromatico.net> wrote:
>other 2/3, plus a healthy dose of undoing poorly done things. When I
>got into the IT world, it seemed like I underestimated by an order of
>magnitude. Requiring credentials and certification -- at least
>*meaningful* credentials and certification, and there's a whole other
>can of worms -- or making software engineers legally and
>professionally liable for things they approve of, in the way that
>engineers in the physical world are legally and professionally liable,
>would go a long way.
Of course, you're right to. FWIW, my experience with my previous
employer is that I was hired because some friend of mine, who's a
friend of the boss too, and also worked for him knew my Perl skills
and told him about me, and they were looking for Perl programmers. So
they were definitely looking for quality. Not that I'm implying that
they found it, with me! :-) Anyway it was particularly important for
them, being a small company. Of course they were wary of people
plainly giving out curricula. Finding people by "fame" may seem a lot
"unprofessional", but as long as it's practiceable, it works well.
Bart Lateur
>You will
>dismiss it as a toy for small scripts, and not accept it as an
>"industrial strength" language because it isn't compiled, doesn't do
>typechecking, and isn't supported by CASE tools.
A need for case tools is a sign of weaknesses in the language.
Just IMO, of course. :)
--
Bart.
Greg Jetter
> You're just a kid. 9600 baud? I was around for the 110 baud audio-coupled
> modems. In those days we didn't post at all. :-)
dam I still got a mini thats got a 110 baud modem ... zilog z80 it's now
used as a plant stand in the office <G>... man i feel old...
Greg
--
"You are what you is" - Frank Zappa
Martijn Lievaart
> On Apr 12, 8:45 pm, Tad McClellan <t...@augustmail.com> wrote:
>> The decline in traffic is due to greater overall efficiency!
>
> Actually, it's because Perl is dying.
>
> People are using other languages, Java, PHP, and in my area, Python. We
> still use a good amount of Perl, in fact, I'm engaged in a fairly large
> database automation program which will probably use about 15 or so Perl
> scripts. But serious developers will use Java, or even VB (yes, even VB)
> rather than Perl, at least in my community.
>
> If you want to get laughed at, use Perl. It's so ... 80's.
Well, just had another look at python today. While I have some serious
reservations, I can see why it is so popular. For one, it's actually
quite readable.(This comes from someone who has programmed for 20 years
in all kinds of languages. Yes, even prolog for those who remember that.)
There are so many tools to get the job done today. Perl is in a competing
arena where there are good arguments to use other languages.
However, many of those arguments have to do with maintainability, not
capability. And maintainability has to do with the skills of programmers,
not language capabilities.
To go into the very languages you state:
* Python: A very good competitor. Con, not installed by default on many
OSses. Pro: Can do about anything that Perl can, in a more readable way.
* VB: Is not used very much, except in Windows only shops (which are
many). In todays webcentric environments, VB is only used for intranet
applications and cannot be taken very seriously because of it's
maintenance issues (much of those are actually really more a programmer/
management issue (we use MS only!) than a real coding issue).
* Java: Java was the hype. Nowadays I see it used a lot, but in very
specific circumstances:
1) Web programming: There's lot of serious webprogramming in Java. If
you want a serious framework for large projects, don't look at Perl, Java
is much better suited. However, for small projects, Java is just
overkill, use Perl, php, or whatever small solution.
2) Specific clients. They are slow, but they work. hey, if you can
overcome the write once test anywhere conundrum, Java is ideal. It's much
better than writing specific clients for all OSses you are targetting.
Perl is no contestor in this area, except specific clients written for a
sysadmin community.
* PHP: Oh yes. I'm actually somewhat of a php fan, but am finding that in
the long run Perl is much better at writing reusable and maintainable
programs. However it's a close call.
Perl's not dead by a long way. I still amaze people how I can solve
problems in Perl with a few lines of code that would otherwise be either
impossible, or would take a dedicated C (or whatever) program or would
take hundreds of lines of VBS. And talking about VBS, more often than not
the resulting program is unmaintainable and actually does not do the job.
Or not reliably. Not to say it cannot be done, but the people who can
write the correct program prefer other languages. And Perl is often one
of them.
M4
P.S. One of my colleagues refuses to use Perl for his scripts. His
scripts are KSH only. His reason? Others have to maintain this. I don't
agree but his scripts are written in such a way even a dumbo can
understand them. Unlucky us, we have to deal with VOZ ZEK fhccbeg, who do
not even understand boot up scripts. I can understand his reasons.
P.S.P.S. Same colleague took over some duties from VOZ ZEK fhccbeg,
because they didn't have the resources for the job at hand. They did
assign two juniors to look over him. "My god, you did actually write
those scripts yourself?" Those guys where ready to rename a couple of VGs
and redistribute the disks in those VGs *by* hand* and thought they could
do so with reasonable (reasonable here being 100%) accuracy.
Michele Dondi
<m...@rtij.nl.invlalid> wrote:
>Well, just had another look at python today. While I have some serious
>reservations, I can see why it is so popular. For one, it's actually
>quite readable.(This comes from someone who has programmed for 20 years
Certainly it is. It's one of its most known strengths. Certainly one
of the most advertised. The point being that it *forces* you to write
readable code, the way it thinks readable is. Which is the reason why
*generally* Perl programmers don't like it: because Perl *lets* you
write quite readable code. And quite unreadable code too. I suppose
both crowds pursue some sort of beauty. But these are beauties of
diverging kinds. That of TMBOWTDIness on the one side and that of
TMTOWTDIness on the other one.
>in all kinds of languages. Yes, even prolog for those who remember that.)
I believe it is still alive and well, for those who want to have fun
with it, and also -from the professional point of view- in some
specific application areas.
>There are so many tools to get the job done today. Perl is in a competing
>arena where there are good arguments to use other languages.
I don't by the competing arena metaphor too much, but maybe that's
just me...
>To go into the very languages you state:
>* Python: A very good competitor. Con, not installed by default on many
>OSses. Pro: Can do about anything that Perl can, in a more readable way.
Nope. Perl can be as readable as Python or more. Python doesn't let
you write unreadable code. (Well, up to some point, I suppose.) And
that may be a plus or a minus depending on one's personal tastes...
>* VB: Is not used very much, except in Windows only shops (which are
[snip]
>* Java: Java was the hype. Nowadays I see it used a lot, but in very
Languages with such intrinsically different charachteristics and
*typical* application areas hardly make a sense when compared with
Perl and Python, which OTOH can be compared quite well.
>* PHP: Oh yes. I'm actually somewhat of a php fan, but am finding that in
>the long run Perl is much better at writing reusable and maintainable
>programs. However it's a close call.
Although they tell me that now it can be used as a general purpose
language, php still fundamentally remains an application-specific one,
with several limitations and can similarly hardly be compared with
Perl, or Python.
A. Sinan Unur
news:pan.2007.04...@rtij.nl.invlalid:
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 12:31:17 -0700, cartercc wrote:
>
>> On Apr 12, 8:45 pm, Tad McClellan <t...@augustmail.com> wrote:
>>> The decline in traffic is due to greater overall efficiency!
>>
>> Actually, it's because Perl is dying.
I only saw cartercc's comment now (sorry Martijn Lievaart, I have nothing
of substance to add to your post, but thanks for quoting this).
It made me feel lucky that Perl is 'dying' knowing the alternative
as demonstrated by the following example on Oracle forums:
http://forums.oracle.com/forums/thread.jspa?threadID=499980&start=0&tstart=0
Enjoy ;-)
Sinan
--
A. Sinan Unur <1u...@llenroc.ude.invalid>
(remove .invalid and reverse each component for email address)
comp.lang.perl.misc guidelines on the WWW:
http://augustmail.com/~tadmc/clpmisc/clpmisc_guidelines.html
Tad McClellan
> For their bad behavior they are hereby
> named the Top Turds of comp.lang.perl.misc for 2007.
^^^^^^^^
That is completly unfair!
How are all of the aspiring turds supposed to keep up their morale
and work on furthering their craft when these lists are published
prematurely?
They all thought they had 2/3 of the year left before the
selections were to be made...
Sherm Pendley
> perl...@hotmail.com <perl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> For their bad behavior they are hereby
>> named the Top Turds of comp.lang.perl.misc for 2007.
> ^^^^^^^^
>
> That is completly unfair!
You're just jealous because I'm #1. Better luck next year! :-)
sherm--
--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net