[10203] in Perl-Users-Digest
Perl-Users Digest, Issue: 3797 Volume: 8
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Wed Sep 23 11:07:27 1998
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 98 08:01:31 -0700
From: Perl-Users Digest <Perl-Users-Request@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU>
To: Perl-Users@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Perl-Users Digest Wed, 23 Sep 1998 Volume: 8 Number: 3797
Today's topics:
Re: Perl & Java - differences and uses <jdporter@min.net>
Re: Perl & Java - differences and uses <samiller@BIX.com>
Re: Perl & Java - differences and uses <jdporter@min.net>
Re: Perl & Java - differences and uses <borg@imaginary.com>
Re: Perl & Java - differences and uses <borg@imaginary.com>
Re: Perl & Java - differences and uses <jdporter@min.net>
Re: Perl & Java - differences and uses <borg@imaginary.com>
Re: Perl & Java - differences and uses <borg@imaginary.com>
Perl and Oraperl <rzmw30@email.sps.mot.com>
Perl Compiler <artur.stec@atreide.net>
Re: Perl Cookbook, does anyone have it? (Eisen Chao)
Re: Q: Picking an element from a hash (not knowing whic (Mark-Jason Dominus)
Search engine <webmaster@eswap.co.uk>
Search-Engine Pro - URL submission tool harry@dublin.net
Re: speed of subroutine call vs. call by function refer <jhi@alpha.hut.fi>
Re: speed of subroutine call vs. call by function refer (Mark-Jason Dominus)
Virtual Memory Question <cdegroot@hdc.net>
Re: where is Date::Parse? (Abigail)
Re: Where is perl debugger GUI (tkperl)?? (clay irving)
Special: Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 12 Mar 98 (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 09:30:28 -0400
From: John Porter <jdporter@min.net>
Subject: Re: Perl & Java - differences and uses
Message-Id: <3608F7F4.CF573275@min.net>
George Reese wrote:
>
> In comp.lang.java.programmer John Porter <jdporter@min.net> wrote:
> : George Reese wrote:
> :>
> :> I have shown rational arguments to backup OO software engineering as a
> :> good paradigm for development in the large. I have not referenced any
> :> authorities as some sort of argument from authority. I have simply
> :> provided many, many reasons.
>
> : Clearly you prefer to take your chances standing on your own authority.
>
> : But as a skeptic, I would much prefer that you had referenced other
> : authorities whom I respect; it would have done much more for your case.
>
> I have not referenced myself as an authority and I do not reference
> anyone else as an authority. Argument from authority is an invalid
> form of argument. I have presented an argument that you can take or
> leave on its own merits.
Thank you, I will leave them on their own "merits".
But you are double-talking when, in one breath you say
> you will not take my explicit statements as proof.
And in the next say
> I have not referenced myself as an authority.
As I said before, there is nothing wrong with citing well-respected
sources as support for your position. Such argument from authority
is not invalid. Case in point: I feel the use of GOTO statements
should be avoided, because they are dangerous. Dijkstra seems to
agree: "...the use of the go to statement has such disastrous
effects..." and "The unbridled use of the go to statement has an
immediate consequence that it becomes terribly hard to find a
meaningful set of coordinates in which to describe the process
progress." (Communications of the ACM, Vol. 11, No. 3, March 1968,
pp. 147-148.; available at http://www.acm.org/classics/oct95/)
Dijkstra also points out that "Guiseppe Jacopini seems to have
proved the (logical) superfluousness of the go to statement."
(BVhm, Corrado, and Jacopini Guiseppe. Flow diagrams, Turing
machines and languages with only two formation rules. Comm. ACM 9
(May 1966), 366-371.)
Now, I understand if you feel (as I do) that this discussion is
not worth the time and effort to locate appropriate citations;
just be aware that your claims ring hollow without any such support.
--
John "Many Jars" Porter
------------------------------
Date: 23 Sep 1998 13:30:42 GMT
From: <samiller@BIX.com>
Subject: Re: Perl & Java - differences and uses
Message-Id: <6uat62$o15@lotho.delphi.com>
Very true. However, "worrying about A" and "knowing about A" should not be
regarded as equivalent. Complete ignorance of "A" and its function can be
a limiting factor in the use of the tool in which it is embodied.
On 20 Sep 1998 09:46:26 PDT Patricia Shanahan of Who? Me? Organized? wrote
this re Re: Perl && Java - differences and uses:
>3. A stops being a everyday part of programming, and the size and
>difficulty of programs that are considered writable is increased so
>that programming is right at the limit of what programmers can do,
>even without having to worry about A.
Scott A. Miller
samiller@bix.com samiller@cyberenet.net
Have a new Java product? Annouce it @ www.javalobby.org/javawire
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 10:05:47 -0400
From: John Porter <jdporter@min.net>
Subject: Re: Perl & Java - differences and uses
Message-Id: <3609003B.E14F9083@min.net>
George Reese wrote:
>
> In comp.lang.java.programmer John Porter <jdporter@min.net> wrote:
> : George Reese wrote:
> :>
> :> In comp.lang.java.programmer John Porter <jdporter@min.net> wrote:
> :> : I am saying that the usefulness of Amazon rankings is limited
> :> : like this: it is not the absolute ratio of favorable to
> :> : unfavorable reviews for a book that matters; it is the relative
> :> : ratio, compared to the ratios for other books. Nearly every
> :> : book reviewed at Amazon has a preponderance of favorable reviews.
> :> : Does that mean that all these books are good? Of course not.
> :> : Any book that gets an unusually large proportion of unfavorable
> :> : reviews -- even if it is still less than half -- is probably
> :> : a pretty poor book, to have motivated that many people to log
> :> : on and submit a review.
> :>
> :> : Of course, the other problem is sheer sample size: very few
> :> : books get enough reviews of (any kind) to be statistically
> :> : significant.
> :>
> :> This would be an excellent point if it were *I* who was offering up
> :> the reviews at amazon.com as having any meaning. I was in fact
> :> responding to someone else who tried to read meaning into them that
> :> did not exist.
>
> : Well, actually, it's an excellent point, regardless of who might
> : take it as argumentative. The point is, if your book has more than
> : a tiny number of negative reviews, that says something (not favorable)
> : about your book.
>
> It doesn't! It has one negative review by some dude who was
> complaining because I did not provide an example of accessing an MS
> Access database. Keep in mind, JDBC is a database-independent
> API--there is no reason to show examples with any particular database
> engine.
That review, which rates the book at 2 stars, says:
> I have programmed in Java for sometime, but have not used JDBC.
> This book really didn't help me accomplish that goal. I started
> with "JDBC Database Access with Java" and wanted to go farther,
> but this is not that book.
There is also another negative review (2 stars) which can most
charitably be characterized as a suggestion that the book is mistitled:
> The treatment of JDBC is flimsy, at best, and would be a
> disappointment to those looking to learn just about JDBC.
One 3-star review has nothing positive to say about the book,
and complains:
> The book is more about three tier client/server and RMI than it
> is about fully useful database programming using JDBC and JAVA.
Not that the content is bad, but that the title is misleading.
Another 3-star review puts it bluntly:
> I found this book hard to follow and the sample code was to big
> to learn from. If you are looking to learn JDBC programming you
> will learn a small amount from this one!
Out of eight reviews, four (that's 50%) were unfavorable.
However, to put this in perspective, almost all of the several
other JDBC books reviewed at Amazon fared no better than yours;
most fared worse. The only book to get "very good" reviews was
"JDBC Database Access with Java: A Tutorial and Annotated Reference"
from Addison-Wesley.
I also suggest a look at JavaWorld's book reviews section
(http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-01-1998/jw-01-bookreview.html)
which recommends the A-W book as the first choice, along
with "official JDBC reference materials".
That reviewer, Laurence Vanhelsuwi, has some positive and
negative things to say about George's book, which can be
summarized as "the book is too short for what it attempts
to cover".
> Again, some comments were offered up, taken out of context, of the
> reviews in which they were given and presented as negative. It was
> offered as if that said something about my book.
>
> I posted a response showing how they were not negative comments and in
> fact these same reviewers were giving my book 3, 4, and 5 stars and
> then you tell me all this means nothing.
Well, who knows how people figure what rating to give a book.
I think the text is more informative. And in light of the texts,
those 2- and 3- star ratings were nothing other than negative.
> You cannot have it both ways.
If it makes you any happier, I'll concede that the Amazon
reviews are worthless -- or, at best, that it is very difficult
to derive real value from them.
> And this is a stupid argument anyways.
> Whether or not I have written a book is completely irrelevant.
Perhaps; but it could have bearing on the validity of you
referencing yourself as an authority.
--
John "Many Jars" Porter
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 14:24:07 GMT
From: George Reese <borg@imaginary.com>
Subject: Re: Perl & Java - differences and uses
Message-Id: <bw7O1.1555$Ge.5138098@ptah.visi.com>
In comp.lang.java.programmer John Porter <jdporter@min.net> wrote:
: George Reese wrote:
:>
:> In comp.lang.java.programmer John Porter <jdporter@min.net> wrote:
:> : George Reese wrote:
:> :>
:> :> I have shown rational arguments to backup OO software engineering as a
:> :> good paradigm for development in the large. I have not referenced any
:> :> authorities as some sort of argument from authority. I have simply
:> :> provided many, many reasons.
:>
:> : Clearly you prefer to take your chances standing on your own authority.
:>
:> : But as a skeptic, I would much prefer that you had referenced other
:> : authorities whom I respect; it would have done much more for your case.
:>
:> I have not referenced myself as an authority and I do not reference
:> anyone else as an authority. Argument from authority is an invalid
:> form of argument. I have presented an argument that you can take or
:> leave on its own merits.
: Thank you, I will leave them on their own "merits".
: But you are double-talking when, in one breath you say
:> you will not take my explicit statements as proof.
: And in the next say
:> I have not referenced myself as an authority.
Reread the question you asked me:
"So, are we unclear as to where you stand on OO?"
And, the above quote, you got from the following reply:
"Evidently, you are. And what is really funny, you will not take my
explicit statements as proof. You instead spend a lot of time reading
into other statements non-explicit meanings."
Not only am I an authority on where I stand, what I say about where I
stand is the best evidence in the world of where I stand. In order to
know where I stand, you have to observe my behaviours. Which, in the
case of USENET, lies entirely within what I say. What are you looking
for?
: As I said before, there is nothing wrong with citing well-respected
: sources as support for your position. Such argument from authority
: is not invalid.
I very much disagree. I think argument from authority is meaningless
and that's why I have not appealed to any of those that do support my
position.
: Case in point: I feel the use of GOTO statements
: should be avoided, because they are dangerous. Dijkstra seems to
: agree: "...the use of the go to statement has such disastrous
: effects..." and "The unbridled use of the go to statement has an
: immediate consequence that it becomes terribly hard to find a
: meaningful set of coordinates in which to describe the process
: progress." (Communications of the ACM, Vol. 11, No. 3, March 1968,
: pp. 147-148.; available at http://www.acm.org/classics/oct95/)
: Dijkstra also points out that "Guiseppe Jacopini seems to have
: proved the (logical) superfluousness of the go to statement."
: (BVhm, Corrado, and Jacopini Guiseppe. Flow diagrams, Turing
: machines and languages with only two formation rules. Comm. ACM 9
: (May 1966), 366-371.)
That Dijkstra said all of that is 100% uninteresting to me and I would
never take it to have any meaning. What is important are the
arguments in question. And above you provide a good argument against
GOTO simply by quoting him.
: Now, I understand if you feel (as I do) that this discussion is
: not worth the time and effort to locate appropriate citations;
: just be aware that your claims ring hollow without any such support.
Whether I felt it worth the time and effort would depend on the
proximity of the book and the freshness in my mind of where in the
book it is :)
However, though I do have such support, I am not about to appeal to
that support because WHO SAID WHAT IS IRRELEVANT. It is what they say
that matters. The arguments must stand on their own merits.
--
George Reese (borg@imaginary.com) http://www.imaginary.com/~borg
PGP Key: http://www.imaginary.com/servlet/Finger?user=borg&verbose=yes
"Keep Ted Turner and his goddamned Crayolas away from my movie."
-Orson Welles
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 14:35:10 GMT
From: George Reese <borg@imaginary.com>
Subject: Re: Perl & Java - differences and uses
Message-Id: <yG7O1.1559$Ge.5138098@ptah.visi.com>
In comp.lang.java.programmer John Porter <jdporter@min.net> wrote:
:> It doesn't! It has one negative review by some dude who was
:> complaining because I did not provide an example of accessing an MS
:> Access database. Keep in mind, JDBC is a database-independent
:> API--there is no reason to show examples with any particular database
:> engine.
[The so-called unfavourable reviews deleted]
Listen, one of those reviews was by someone who was pissed at me and
went out to slam me--it was not based on actual book experience. And
the common thread in all those reviews, as I stated before, was
wanting more about JDBC. It is a common misperception that there is
more to JDBC. Furthermore, my book is not just about JDBC. It is
about distributed programming against database systems. I do not
cover less about JDBC than any other book. It is just that O'Reilly
does not print books in 20 point font to make the book look big.
:> Again, some comments were offered up, taken out of context, of the
:> reviews in which they were given and presented as negative. It was
:> offered as if that said something about my book.
:>
:> I posted a response showing how they were not negative comments and in
:> fact these same reviewers were giving my book 3, 4, and 5 stars and
:> then you tell me all this means nothing.
: Well, who knows how people figure what rating to give a book.
: I think the text is more informative. And in light of the texts,
: those 2- and 3- star ratings were nothing other than negative.
I would say the two two star ratings where. The three stars were
mixed (as one would expect from a three-star review). Given that one
two-star rating was a personal one and the other was ffrom someone
wanting Access examples, I think it is fair to dismiss those two.
At any rate, it doesn't matter to the subject at hand.
:> And this is a stupid argument anyways.
:> Whether or not I have written a book is completely irrelevant.
: Perhaps; but it could have bearing on the validity of you
: referencing yourself as an authority.
I AM NOT REFERENCING MYSELF AS AN AUTHORITY.
In fact, I said I did not want to go into my credentials for fear of
someone trying to claim it as an attempt to claim authority. I only
mentioned the book (I could have mentioned a lot more than a single
book) because I thought it was ironic that, given a thread where several perl
people are making personal attacks on me and assulting my abilities,
my book turns out to be one of the best sellers at the last perl
conference. That's a note of humour and clearly, based on what I
said, not something that I expect anyone to derive any conclusions
from.
I did not even mention the nature of the book. It could have been a
book on 'Quality Pearl Stranding in the Orient' for all anyone would
have known. The important thing was that it sold a lot at a perl
convention. Got it?
--
George Reese (borg@imaginary.com) http://www.imaginary.com/~borg
PGP Key: http://www.imaginary.com/servlet/Finger?user=borg&verbose=yes
"Keep Ted Turner and his goddamned Crayolas away from my movie."
-Orson Welles
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 10:43:20 -0400
From: John Porter <jdporter@min.net>
Subject: Re: Perl & Java - differences and uses
Message-Id: <36090908.2A0EF117@min.net>
George Reese wrote:
>
> In comp.lang.java.programmer John Porter <jdporter@min.net> wrote:
> : George Reese wrote:
> :> John Porter wrote:
> :> : This begs the question of whether the OO paradigm *ought* to be
> :> : maintained across the process. Clearly, you think it does.
> :>
> :> And I have provided support for that belief in other posts.
>
> : You keep saying that, but it still isn't true.
> : You have not ever (in this thread) provided one shred of EVIDENCE
> : for anything. You repeat the same claims, over and over, one of
> : which is that you've provided support for the others. It's a lie.
> : You have NOT, EVER ONCE provided ANY EVIDENCE for the claims you
> : have made.
>
> I have provided premises which you can debate or not. You have not
> chosen to debate those premises. What exactly do you want?
>
> If I say:
>
> All Americans speak French.
> I am American.
> Therefore I speak French.
>
> As this argument follows from the premises, I have provided an
> argument with support. You can either choose to debate my premises or
> concede that I speak French.
(To continue using your analogy)
You originally stated "I speak French".
Others said, "Oh yeah? Prove it!"
You responded: "I am American, and all Americans speak French".
Now clearly, this is logically consistent, but it is not satisfactory.
Others said, "All Americans speak French?!?!?! Prove it!"
And you have not responded, other than to say,
"I speak French, All Americans speak French, and I have already
proved it."
So we (some of us) are still waiting for the proof that
all Americans speak French. Maybe you could cite some Bureau of
Census statistics.
> How often do people reduce their arguments to their logical form in
> USENET or any other forum? Pretty close to never. Either way, given
> that I have, it is disingenuous of anyone to suggest I have not
> supported my argument.
I'm sorry, but formalizing your argument (which you say you have done)
should not be confused with supporting it (which you have not done).
> I forget the exact context, but this says to me that someone was
> claiming that the sole goal of OO is reuse. A lot of people do in
> fact make that claim and my general response to that is that reuse
> does not render something OO. It is not a comment on the primacy of OO.
Mokay... But I'm still unclear as to how the claim
"The sole goal of OO is reuse" can be interpreted to mean
"The sole path to reuse is OO" -- which is what your response
actually rebuts.
> You are taking my quotes out of context again. I was talking about
> you not taking my statements of proof of what I think. My statements
> are most definitely proof of what I think. In other words, if I state
> "my kitty cat is purple" that is good proof I think my cat is purple.
If you think playing these semantic games will win you arguments,
then have fun. I won't waste my time with it.
> :> For those things where taking an OO approach will not work, perl,
> :> python, and java are all bad solutions.
>
> : Which is to say, in the problem domain in which perl, python, and
> : java are not bad solutions, OO is the best approach.
> : Again, close enough to "OO is Everything" as makes no difference.
> : (Yes, let's ignore embedded real-time systems. Fair enough?)
>
> If you say "ignore everything in which OO is not a good solution",
> yes, my response will be "OO is everything".
What I find interesting is that this clearly betrays that you
think all non-[embedded/real-time/etc] domains are inherently
best approached with OO. That is the claim about which I am
skeptical.
> Any group development product or any development product that has a
> chance of a long life cycle whose functionality could be accomplished
> in perl should be approached from an OO point of view and not in fact
> be done in perl.
>
> I think the premises I have offered in this past support this
> statement.
Yes, since I understand that by "support" you mean "restate".
> And no language absolutely positively forces
> you to program in an OO manner.
Hmm. Care to comment on Smalltalk specifically?
> For the type of program in question, the goal was that someone wanted
> me to mimic some perl code.
Well, Jim Woodgate asked:
> how would you code the following
>...
> Please show me how using python would make this easier.
For whatever reason (and I'm not faulting you), you chose to
map the code verbatim into Python, rather than craft an idiomatic
Python solution, thus passing by the opportunity to show
"how using python would make this easier".
> It was not offered as proof of anything.
I guess you succeeded!
> Furthermore, any hello world program in any language will appear
> procedural unless you do something really bizarre. And that was
> nothing more than a fancy hello world program.
Point well taken; although I challenge you on the "any language" bit.
--
John "Many Jars" Porter
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 14:58:33 GMT
From: George Reese <borg@imaginary.com>
Subject: Re: Perl & Java - differences and uses
Message-Id: <t08O1.1563$Ge.5138098@ptah.visi.com>
In comp.lang.java.programmer Andrew Johnson <ajohnson@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca> wrote:
: George Reese wrote:
: ! No, but that is not important to my argument. Reproducibility is
: ! neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for quality software.
: ! Clearly someone hacking away in their basement more or less at random
: ! is capable of producing quality software and clearly I can come up
: ! with true honest-to-god algorithms for building crap software.
: !
: ! For predictability, however, repeatability is necessary.
: ! Specifically, in order to be able to say with any demonstrable
: ! certainty (i.e. certainty that a third party like a client will
: ! accept), I have to show a process whose results can reasonably be
: ! predicted. And, as I stated above, repeatability is a necessary
: ! condition for predictability.
: yes, but showing that the process of software development is
: repeatable does not show that it repeatedly produces *quality*
: software --- which was the motivating condition in premise 1.
While, at this point, it does not prove my point, you will concede
that "OO software engineering is reasonably repeatable"?
: !
: ! My argument does not rest on algorithmic reduction. It rests on
: ! similarity to alogorithmic processes--i.e. more like a recipe than an
: ! alogorithm.
: But you still seem to miss the fact the repeatability or
: predictability of OO methods is irrevelant unless those methods are
: already shown to be guarantors of *quality* results --- you have an
: implicit circularity in your reasoning, and I think the stage at
: which you miss the circularity is in premise 3 where you posit that
: OO methods possess (or are the closest thing to) a certain 'valuable'
: property --- but that property does not confer any *quality* status
: to the results of the method...just repeatability. see above.
You are correct. I am missing a link in those arguments.
: !
: ! : BTW, you have still yet to comment on my previous remarks about
: ! : "freedom" in programming with regard to OO, namely, does an OO
: ! : programmer have the 'freedom' to choose among various possible OO
: ! : implementations of a solution to a problem --- or do you somehow
: ! : still believe that 'freedom' has no place in programming, and that
: ! : for any problem there is only one implementable and correct solution?
: !
: ! I do not entirely understand what you mean by the question. Do you
: ! mean does the programmer get to choose the methodology? No, that is
: ! the job of the project lead. Do you mean does the programmer get to
: ! choose the language? No, that would be a function of the lead
: ! designer. Does the programmer get to choose whether to use MI or
: ! delegation? No, that is a design decision.
: !
: ! Somehow, I do not think any of those questions is what you mean.
: they are not: You have stated that 'freedom' has no place in
: programming, so, down at the programming stage, two programmers
: are given identical projects to code in an OO methodology using
: the same OO language --- do they produce identical code? do they
: have any freedom in implementing the design? the classes? the methods?
: If all the implementation details are worked out further up the
: chain, then I would argue that the stuff going on higher in the chain
: *is* programming, and any freedom they excersise is freedom in
: programming (I would also argue that those on the coding floor are no
: longer programmers but merely typists and transcriptionists).
Sine you seem to have read Dennett, I am going to talk in Dennett
terms on this because it is easier...
Basically, that they produce identical code is irrelevant. What
matters is the results at the level at which explanation occurs. In
other words, take for example the following two addition methods:
public int add(int a, int b) {
return (a + b);
}
public int add(int a, int b) {
a +=b;
return a;
}
These two methods are written differently. Nevertheless, those
methods have the same signature, same function, and same performance.
At the level at which we explain the system--the level at which we
care about the results, they are identically written.
In OO terms, signature, function, and performance are the level we
care about. And as I have stated in the past, performance is the
achilles heel of OO. You cannot guarantee performance in an OO
environment.
...
So the weakpoint of my argument seems to be getting from 'OO is a
the most repeatable software engineering process' to 'the OO process
results in quality code'.
Basically, all I need to do is show that you can produce quality code
since ostensibly people will follow the repeatable paths that produce
quality code and not the ones that will produce failure.
(In fact, the anti-patterns book is about repeatable OO design
patterns that will guarantee failure)
OO design patterns are proven quality components.
OO software is made up at least in part of OO design patterns.
The greater a percentage of an OO system is made up of OO design
patterns and other kinds of proven OO components (i.e. business
objects), the more likely a piece of software has of being a quality
piece of software.
As time goes by, more and more problems will have proven patterns (or
other kinds of reusable components) to back them up.
Because OO can predict how proven components will interact given their public
interfaces, OO is capable of resulting in quality code.
Now the issue is, is OO guaranteed to produce quality software given
no design patterns or a famine of them? The answer is clearly no.
I am of course begging the question of whether there are sufficient
design patterns and other components to get this far. Suffice it to
say I think that plays into another area where OO is weak and people
should question its use. If someone wants to get into it, I will, but
that is not really important to the topic at hand.
--
George Reese (borg@imaginary.com) http://www.imaginary.com/~borg
PGP Key: http://www.imaginary.com/servlet/Finger?user=borg&verbose=yes
"Keep Ted Turner and his goddamned Crayolas away from my movie."
-Orson Welles
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 14:59:39 GMT
From: George Reese <borg@imaginary.com>
Subject: Re: Perl & Java - differences and uses
Message-Id: <v18O1.1564$Ge.5138098@ptah.visi.com>
In comp.lang.java.programmer David Formosa <dformosa@zeta.org.au> wrote:
: In <wv0O1.1521$Ge.4809664@ptah.visi.com> George Reese <borg@imaginary.com> writes:
:>In comp.lang.java.programmer Andrew Johnson <ajohnson@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca> wrote:
: [...]
:>: it is a logical conclusion, and while taken all together it is internally
:>: consistent that does not make it a 'supported' argument --- you need
:>: to support your premises as well.
:>It is an argument that follows from the premises.
:>You are bordering on ridiculous if you think you need to support your
:>premises.
: You have to build up your agrument from aggried facts. You take some fact
: that we both beleave to be true And use that to base your arguemtent. Other
: wise its like building a carsel on a swamp.
Yes, but I don't know if you accept it as true or not until you tell
me. So far, only one person has attempted to do that.
--
George Reese (borg@imaginary.com) http://www.imaginary.com/~borg
PGP Key: http://www.imaginary.com/servlet/Finger?user=borg&verbose=yes
"Keep Ted Turner and his goddamned Crayolas away from my movie."
-Orson Welles
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 08:56:50 -0500
From: "rzmw30" <rzmw30@email.sps.mot.com>
Subject: Perl and Oraperl
Message-Id: <6uauo1$9fc$1@newsgate.sps.mot.com>
I'm somewhat new to perl and am having problems
trying to get oraperl to compile and install.
I've compiled and installed Perl Version 5.005_2
and it works fine.
I downloaded Oraperl Version 2.4 but when I try
to compile it chokes on "make oraperl". The makefile
is looking for a uperl.o file in the perl source directory
but this object file was not created(?) when I compiled
perl.
I am running this on HP-UX Version 10.2.
Does anyone know how to get Oraperl to compile on
this platform?
Thank You,
Doug
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 10:14:33 -0400
From: "Atreide communications inc." <artur.stec@atreide.net>
Subject: Perl Compiler
Message-Id: <36090249.39834B75@atreide.net>
I am trying to compile a short Perl script using the Perl Compiler v.
alfa 3. During a compilation time everything seems to be ok.
At run-time I get the message:
Can't locate object method "new" via package "Mail::POP3Client".
I tried to use the "-u" switch but no luck so far.
Here is my simple script.
#!/usr/bin/perl
use Mail::POP3Client;
my $user="real username";
my $pass="real password";
my $domain="real domain";
my $pop = new Mail::POP3Client($user, $pass, $domain);
for (my $i = 1; $i <= $pop->Count; $i++) {
for ($pop->Head($i)) {
/^Date/ and print $_,"\n";
/^From/ and print $_,"\n";
/^Subject/ and print $_,"\n";
}
print "\n";
}
$pop->Close;
Any pointers would be most appreciated.
Artur Stec
artur.stec@atreide.net
------------------------------
Date: 23 Sep 1998 14:35:36 GMT
From: echao@interaccess.com (Eisen Chao)
Subject: Re: Perl Cookbook, does anyone have it?
Message-Id: <6ub0vo$3qj$2@supernews.com>
I got examples from Web site and put on a floppy to take home.
Some goooood stuff there...
John Call (johnc@interactive.ibm.com) wrote:
: Has anyone gotten a copy of this yet? I'm dying to get it and it doesn't
: seem to have reached Georgia yet.
:
: If you do have it, do you like it? From what I've seen on the ORA site it
: looks good.
:
: --
: John Call
: IBM Interactive Media
:
:
------------------------------
Date: 23 Sep 1998 10:22:06 -0400
From: mjd@op.net (Mark-Jason Dominus)
Subject: Re: Q: Picking an element from a hash (not knowing which!) [Zorn's lemma?]
Message-Id: <6ub06e$mt3$1@monet.op.net>
In article <3608A258.43F4B9C9@ismes.it>,
Andrea Spinelli <aspinelli@ismes.it> wrote:
>Is there any better/more elegant/more efficient way of picking an
>arbitrary element from a hash?
I think you picked the best way.
But you are confused about Zorn's Lemma and the related Axiom of Choice.
You need to do more reading.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 17:54:01 -0700
From: "E-swap" <webmaster@eswap.co.uk>
Subject: Search engine
Message-Id: <6u6t0d$1ai$1@nnrp1.snfc21.pbi.net>
Hi
Does anyone know of a perl/cgi serach engine available. Not a search for
your site but for the net as a whole. Similar to yahoo, excite, lycos etc.,
etc., etc.
Thanks in advance
Darren
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 14:02:33 GMT
From: harry@dublin.net
Subject: Search-Engine Pro - URL submission tool
Message-Id: <6uav1p$f9v$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
Hello,
This week I just recently finished developing version 2.0 of Search-Engine
Pro, it now supports submissions to over 35 different search-engines, and the
latest release is also multi-threaded. Anyone currently running version 1.0,
please upgrade - the latest release addresses several bugs found in v1.0
Any suggestions of the new release would be greatly appreciated!
You can download a free copy of version 2.0 from
http://cybernet.isecure.net
Ciao,
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
------------------------------
Date: 23 Sep 1998 16:51:54 +0300
From: Jarkko Hietaniemi <jhi@alpha.hut.fi>
Subject: Re: speed of subroutine call vs. call by function reference
Message-Id: <oeer9x3rl6t.fsf@alpha.hut.fi>
For reference:
5.005_02, machine A:
function pointer: 14 wallclock secs ( 9.78 usr + 0.03 sys = 9.82 CPU)
subroutine call: 18 wallclock secs ( 9.57 usr + -0.00 sys = 9.57 CPU)
5.004_04, machine A:
function pointer: 12 secs ( 9.47 usr 0.02 sys = 9.48 cpu)
subroutine call: 15 secs ( 9.27 usr 0.08 sys = 9.35 cpu)
5.004_04, machine B:
function pointer: 8 secs ( 7.36 usr 0.05 sys = 7.41 cpu)
subroutine call: 7 secs ( 7.56 usr -0.01 sys = 7.55 cpu)
Summary: I cannot find either of your results. 5.005_02 is for me
faster (sorry, don't have 5.005_01 around) and function pointer
is faster 2 times out of three.
Besides: any difference below 5% is meaningless unless the test setups
are 100% equal for the duration of all tests. Which they rarely are
in a multitasking environment. Here, the differences are <3%.
In your tests the difference between fp and sc was only 3-7%.
The only real result I see is the huge difference between 4_04
and 5_01. Maybe you should try out 5_02 -- though that shouldn't
affect much.
Which OS and HW are you using? A _really_ lousy thread implementation
could explain the >100% difference.
--
$jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/~jhi/
# There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'.
# It is 'dead'. -- Jack Cohen
------------------------------
Date: 23 Sep 1998 10:35:56 -0400
From: mjd@op.net (Mark-Jason Dominus)
Subject: Re: speed of subroutine call vs. call by function reference
Message-Id: <6ub10c$n0t$1@monet.op.net>
In article <3608EB6E.7CD32700@min.net>, John Porter <jdporter@min.net> wrote:
>Dan Sugalski wrote:
>>
>> Lexical @_ seems to add some overhead too.
>
>"Lexical @_" ???
>
>Either I am badly confused, or this term is lacking in precision.
>Can you clarify?
perldelta:
If threads are enabled, then some caveats apply. @_ and $_
become lexical variables. The effect of this should be
largely transparent to the user, but there are some
boundary conditions under which user will need to be aware
of the issues. For example, local(@_) results in a "Can't
localize lexical variable @_ ..." message. This may be
enabled in a future version.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 13:54:09 GMT
From: Craig De Groot <cdegroot@hdc.net>
Subject: Virtual Memory Question
Message-Id: <3608FD81.2657C0A4@hdc.net>
I am running perl 5.003 for solaris.
The problem is that perl is running out of physical memory and giving me
an "Out of memory!" error. I need to know if perl uses virtual memory
by default or if it is running out of swap space as well. If perl does
not use virtual memory by default how do I turn it on?
------------------------------
Date: 23 Sep 1998 13:52:23 GMT
From: abigail@fnx.com (Abigail)
Subject: Re: where is Date::Parse?
Message-Id: <6uauen$nhv$1@client3.news.psi.net>
Leslie Mikesell (les@MCS.COM) wrote on MDCCCXLIX September MCMXCIII in
<URL: news:6u9vqn$3t5$1@Venus.mcs.net>:
++
++ Hmmmm, very curious how something like ftp or lynx could break
++ simply because they are invoked by perl. Even if there are
++ firewall options involved, perl shouldn't be munching your
++ environment or config file settings.
I'm not saying ftp or lynx are breaking. It's just that CPAN doesn't
seem to know how to handle them.
Abigail
--
perl -we '$_ = q ;4a75737420616e6f74686572205065726c204861636b65720as;;
for (s;s;s;s;s;s;s;s;s;s;s;s)
{s;(..)s?;qq qprint chr 0x$1 and \161 ssq;excess;}'
------------------------------
Date: 23 Sep 1998 09:43:49 -0400
From: clay@panix.com (clay irving)
Subject: Re: Where is perl debugger GUI (tkperl)??
Message-Id: <6uatul$rt@panix.com>
In <6u3t7t$ruk@dgs.dgsys.com> jete@dgs.dgsys.com (Jete Software Inc.) writes:
>I had the URL for the site where someone was working on an open source
>perl debugger GUI (this is not the ActiveWare version), which is implemented
>in tkperl. But I managed to lose the URL.
>Can someone please supply the URL for it.
-> Perl Reference <http://reference.perl.com>
-> debugging <http://reference.perl.com/query.cgi?debug>
-> Perl Debugger Built With a PerlTk User Interface
<http://world.std.com/~aep/ptkdb/>
--
clay irving
clay@panix.com
http://www.panix.com/~clay/
------------------------------
Date: 12 Jul 98 21:33:47 GMT (Last modified)
From: Perl-Request@ruby.oce.orst.edu (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
Subject: Special: Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 12 Mar 98)
Message-Id: <null>
Administrivia:
Special notice: in a few days, the new group comp.lang.perl.moderated
should be formed. I would rather not support two different groups, and I
know of no other plans to create a digested moderated group. This leaves
me with two options: 1) keep on with this group 2) change to the
moderated one.
If you have opinions on this, send them to
perl-users-request@ruby.oce.orst.edu.
The Perl-Users Digest is a retransmission of the USENET newsgroup
comp.lang.perl.misc. For subscription or unsubscription requests, send
the single line:
subscribe perl-users
or:
unsubscribe perl-users
to almanac@ruby.oce.orst.edu.
To submit articles to comp.lang.perl.misc (and this Digest), send your
article to perl-users@ruby.oce.orst.edu.
To submit articles to comp.lang.perl.announce, send your article to
clpa@perl.com.
To request back copies (available for a week or so), send your request
to almanac@ruby.oce.orst.edu with the command "send perl-users x.y",
where x is the volume number and y is the issue number.
The Meta-FAQ, an article containing information about the FAQ, is
available by requesting "send perl-users meta-faq". The real FAQ, as it
appeared last in the newsgroup, can be retrieved with the request "send
perl-users FAQ". Due to their sizes, neither the Meta-FAQ nor the FAQ
are included in the digest.
The "mini-FAQ", which is an updated version of the Meta-FAQ, is
available by requesting "send perl-users mini-faq". It appears twice
weekly in the group, but is not distributed in the digest.
For other requests pertaining to the digest, send mail to
perl-users-request@ruby.oce.orst.edu. Do not waste your time or mine
sending perl questions to the -request address, I don't have time to
answer them even if I did know the answer.
------------------------------
End of Perl-Users Digest V8 Issue 3797
**************************************
