[22702] in Perl-Users-Digest
Perl-Users Digest, Issue: 4923 Volume: 10
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Thu May 1 18:10:45 2003
Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 15:10:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: Perl-Users Digest <Perl-Users-Request@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU>
To: Perl-Users@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Perl-Users Digest Thu, 1 May 2003 Volume: 10 Number: 4923
Today's topics:
Re: What is the best software to run for an aspiring Pe (Thaddeus L. Olczyk)
Re: What is the best software to run for an aspiring Pe (Thaddeus L. Olczyk)
Re: What is the best software to run for an aspiring Pe <ben_altman@deadspam.com>
Re: What is the best software to run for an aspiring Pe (Thaddeus L. Olczyk)
Re: What is the best software to run for an aspiring Pe <usenet@dwall.fastmail.fm>
Re: What is the best software to run for an aspiring Pe <flavell@mail.cern.ch>
Why Lisp sucks ( Re: Announcement: The regex coach ) (Thaddeus L. Olczyk)
Re: Why Lisp sucks ( Re: Announcement: The regex coach <edi@agharta.de>
Re: Why Lisp sucks ( Re: Announcement: The regex coach <mjcarman@mchsi.com>
Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 6 Apr 01) (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 18:40:30 GMT
From: olczyk@interaccess.com (Thaddeus L. Olczyk)
Subject: Re: What is the best software to run for an aspiring Perl programer?
Message-Id: <3eb568ab.157286562@nntp.interaccess.com>
On Thu, 01 May 2003 06:35:33 GMT, "Jurgen Exner"
<jurgenex@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Thaddeus L. Olczyk wrote:
>> On Thu, 01 May 2003 05:54:15 GMT, olczyk@interaccess.com (Thaddeus L.
>> Olczyk) wrote:
>>
>>> Now you just run the script from bash and voila! You are in the
>>> debugger with an environment almost as close as you can get to
>>> the server environment.
>>> If you want to just run the script and not enter the debugger, remove
>>> the -d. Ther are lots of ways you can tweak it, ( For example, you
>>> don't print all the keys, you specify which ones you want set. ) but
>>> this is a good starting point.
>>>
>> I forgot. I'm a Perl newbie, and it only took me fifteen minutes to
>> come up with this ( most of it spend reading ).
>
>Actually, you are re-inventing the wheel. CGI.pm already offers a debug
>functionalilty where POST and GET are passed from the command line.
>
Hmm. I will have to check it out ( as I said I was a newbie ). Most
likely though is that you want to incorportate CGI.pm into the scheme
I suggested, not replace it. After allw when debugging on another
machine, you want to come as close to the environment of the original
machine as you can...
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 19:33:45 GMT
From: olczyk@interaccess.com (Thaddeus L. Olczyk)
Subject: Re: What is the best software to run for an aspiring Perl programer?
Message-Id: <3eb67144.159487203@nntp.interaccess.com>
On 1 May 2003 05:57:16 -0700, dalgould@hotmail.com (dalgould) wrote:
>>
>> Ok. My best advice is stopaspiring. Not just on Perl
>> but on programming altogether. You just don't have
>> the intelligence.
>>
>
>Why does someone always have to be a smartass? Your posting shows
>more of a lack of intelligence. Everyone has to have a starting point
>on another programming language. Your 15 minutes worth really shows.
>
My 15 minutes will get people started on the problem.
Why do stupid people always try to be programmers? You don't have
basic problem solving skills you shouldn't be a programmer. If stupid
people didn't try to be programmers, then there would be less buggy
software written and mangers wouldn't be moving programming shops
to India and China.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 14:48:21 -0500
From: Ben <ben_altman@deadspam.com>
Subject: Re: What is the best software to run for an aspiring Perl programer?
Message-Id: <b8rtm6$cjg54$1@ID-121117.news.dfncis.de>
Thaddeus L. Olczyk wrote:
> Why do stupid people always try to be programmers? You don't have
> basic problem solving skills you shouldn't be a programmer. If stupid
> people didn't try to be programmers, then there would be less buggy
> software written and mangers wouldn't be moving programming shops
> to India and China.
It takes more than good programming skills to get work in the computing
industry. You come across as someone who is arrogant and without people
skills. You have to know how to deal with all types of people in a nice
way. Labelling people based on your limited perceptions of them will not
take you very far and nor will your cockyness. Also, someone who is
unsure about one area of knowledge may be quite clued up in another.
Labelling them as "stupid" only reflects badly on yourself.
regards,
Ben
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 20:05:40 GMT
From: olczyk@interaccess.com (Thaddeus L. Olczyk)
Subject: Re: What is the best software to run for an aspiring Perl programer?
Message-Id: <3eb77198.159571421@nntp.interaccess.com>
On Thu, 1 May 2003 06:22:26 -0500, tadmc@augustmail.com (Tad
McClellan) wrote:
>Thaddeus L. Olczyk <olczyk@interaccess.com> wrote:
>> On 30 Apr 2003 11:51:32 -0700, dalgould@hotmail.com (dalgould) wrote:
>
>>>What is the best and most avaiable way of testing my perl script from
>>>my computer itself and not from my web server.
>
>
>> Ok. My best advice is stopaspiring. Not just on Perl
>> but on programming altogether. You just don't have
>> the intelligence.
>
>
>Bullshit.
>
>Ignorance does not imply a lack of intelligence.
>
>
It's not ignorange. It's a basic lack of problem solving skills.
When starting to write CGI scripts, thye very first things that a
programmer should ask are:
"What is CGI?"
"How do CGI programs work?"
"What is the enviroment they run under?"
In fact the last one is discussed extensively in SCIP's second chapter
( the first real chapter ).
"How would I go about debugging a CGI script?"
Once these are asked then to a fairly intellegent person a script like
the one I suggest should be obvious. The fact that it didn't indicates
that the person doesn't have the intelligence to program.
>> open OUTPUT,">testscript.sh";
>
>
>You should always, yes *always*, check the return value from open():
>
> open OUTPUT, '>testscript.sh' or die "could not open 'testscript.sh' $!";
>
>most especially when you aspire to instructing others on how to do it.
>
This makes me wonder about you.
The first ( and obvious ) question is if you should *always* check the
return value from open(), then why doesn't open require that you do
so? It would be easy for the implementors to make it so that the
language requires it: open HANDLE,FILENAME,DIESTATEMENT
. They don't, so it is not something that you should *always* check
for.
As for this script, it is a quick and dirty one-use script meant to be
run by a Perl programmer. This is a circumstance where it really does
not matter whether or not you check. In fact I know of circumstances
where spending the time to check costs companies millions per second
( filed service techs ).
Oh yeah. One other thing about checking here, it makes very little
difference. In either case the script fails and the browser reports
server internal error.
>
>> print OUTPUT "export PERLSCRIPT=",$0,"\n";
>
>
> print OUTPUT "export PERLSCRIPT=$0\n";
>
>
>> print OUTPUT "export ",$key,"=",$ENV{$key},"\n";
>
>
> print OUTPUT "export $key=$ENV{$key}\n";
My way works. Something like it works in other languages too.
Which is why I do it that way.
Whatever happened to "There's more than one way to do it."
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 20:42:01 -0000
From: "David K. Wall" <usenet@dwall.fastmail.fm>
Subject: Re: What is the best software to run for an aspiring Perl programer?
Message-Id: <Xns936EA9E293238dkwwashere@216.168.3.30>
Thaddeus L. Olczyk <olczyk@interaccess.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 1 May 2003 06:22:26 -0500, tadmc@augustmail.com (Tad
> McClellan) wrote:
>
>>
>>> print OUTPUT "export PERLSCRIPT=",$0,"\n";
>>
>>
>> print OUTPUT "export PERLSCRIPT=$0\n";
>>
>>
>>> print OUTPUT "export ",$key,"=",$ENV{$key},"\n";
>>
>>
>> print OUTPUT "export $key=$ENV{$key}\n";
> My way works. Something like it works in other languages too.
> Which is why I do it that way.
> Whatever happened to "There's more than one way to do it."
Yes, it works, but it's harder to read and harder to type than the way Tad
posted. If you ever need to change it, all those quotes that have to match
are potential typos.
my $0.02
(The above is NOT Perl code :-)
--
David K. Wall - usenet@dwall.fastmail.fm
WWJD? JWRTFM.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 22:51:48 +0200
From: "Alan J. Flavell" <flavell@mail.cern.ch>
Subject: Re: What is the best software to run for an aspiring Perl programer?
Message-Id: <Pine.LNX.4.53.0305012241310.27927@lxplus076.cern.ch>
On Thu, May 1, Thaddeus L. Olczyk inscribed on the eternal scroll:
> As for this script, it is a quick and dirty one-use script meant to be
> run by a Perl programmer.
Just moments later you imply that it's meant to be run by a web
server. So which is it?
> This is a circumstance where it really does
> not matter whether or not you check.
It could very well be useful to know the reason why it failed, rather
than blundering on, and discerning the failure only as a side-effect
of something else.
> In fact I know of circumstances
> where spending the time to check costs companies millions per second
> ( filed service techs ).
Sure, and I know of circumstances where field service techs wasted
several man-days on a service call, and flying-in a replacement unit,
because they failed to make the simple checks first. It can work both
ways: but if you're in a situation where you're trying to teach
someone to produce robust programs, it's more important IMHO to teach
them to be systematic about it, than to teach them to cut corners
before they've gained the expertise to understand which corners it
might be safe to cut, and which ones it's fatal to cut, and the whole
scale of in-between.
> Oh yeah. One other thing about checking here, it makes very little
> difference. In either case the script fails and the browser reports
> server internal error.
See, you didn't really mean for it to be "run by a Perl programmer",
or else they'd have seen the result directly (as directly as a console
can be, anyway).
all the best
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 20:36:59 GMT
From: olczyk@interaccess.com (Thaddeus L. Olczyk)
Subject: Why Lisp sucks ( Re: Announcement: The regex coach )
Message-Id: <3eb87fd3.163214890@nntp.interaccess.com>
I actually think the Lisp as programming language is interesting, and
that most criticisms are by people who haven't seriously tried the
language.
But if you are going to deal with Lisp, then you are likely going to
have to deal with the people of comp.lang.lisp. A few of those people
are OK, but many ( like this guy ) are just low IQ people who are
trying to boost their "virtual IQ" by learning the worlds "greatest
language" ( following Eric Raymond's advice ). This guy is one of
them, and you can see the kind of thing you have to deal with from
this post.
On 01 May 2003 17:59:30 +0200, Edi Weitz <edi@agharta.de> wrote:
>William Goedicke <goedicke@goedsole.com> writes:
>
>> You should deliver the source so we can determine it's not a virus.
>
>Just don't download it and you should be more or less safe.
>
>Good luck,
>Edi.
He first announced this yesterday ( or two days ago ) in cll claiming
it ( to paraphrase ) "proved the superiority of Lisp". He then says:
"I wonder how I would have done this had I written the program in
Perl... :) "
Someone suggested he ask here, which is why he posted here ( this is
the only other place he posted ). Of course he doesn't want to reveal
the source, because he's scared someone might come up with something
better.
------------------------------
Date: 01 May 2003 23:22:51 +0200
From: Edi Weitz <edi@agharta.de>
Subject: Re: Why Lisp sucks ( Re: Announcement: The regex coach )
Message-Id: <87ade6e504.fsf@bird.agharta.de>
olczyk@interaccess.com (Thaddeus L. Olczyk) writes:
> But if you are going to deal with Lisp, then you are likely going to
> have to deal with the people of comp.lang.lisp. A few of those
> people are OK, but many ( like this guy ) are just low IQ people who
> are trying to boost their "virtual IQ" by learning the worlds
> "greatest language" ( following Eric Raymond's advice ). This guy is
> one of them,
If you are posting on Usenet you are likely going to have to deal with
morons who like to create flame wars out of thin air. You just have to
live with that...
For another take on Mr. Olczyk (who usually boosts his "virtual IQ" by
signing his messages with "Thaddeus L. Olczyk, PhD") see this message:
<http://www.google.com/groups?selm=aj6mck%24mjn%241%40rznews2.rrze.uni-erlangen.de>
If you're interested in more rudeness by "Th.L.O., PhD" just search
Google Groups.
> He first announced this yesterday ( or two days ago ) in cll claiming
> it ( to paraphrase ) "proved the superiority of Lisp".
For those of you interested in what I've _really_ posted here it is:
<http://www.google.com/groups?selm=8765ov7fk0.fsf%40bird.agharta.de>.
This is basically the same text that can also be found on the website
I've announced on comp.lang.perl.misc,
<http://weitz.de/regex-coach/#technical>
but I thought this information wouldn't be very interesting to Perl
programmers who just want to play with regular expressions.
> He then says: "I wonder how I would have done this had I written the
> program in Perl... :) "
Yep. I'm _still_ wondering how I would have done this had I written
the program in Perl.
I'm currently reading Mark-Jason Dominus' paper
<http://perl.plover.com/Rx/paper/>
on how he implemented 'Rx' and will probably compare his approach to
mine on c.l.l in the next days.
> Someone suggested he ask here, which is why he posted here
Also not true. Someone suggested I should post the announcement to
comp.lang.perl.misc
<http://www.google.com/groups?selm=VY%25ra.2972%248e7.216998%40twister.austin.rr.com>
and this is what I've done.
> ( this is the only other place he posted ).
Sure. Where else would you want me to post it? alt.asshole-factory?
rec.pets.ferrets? talk.bizarre?
> Of course he doesn't want to reveal the source, because he's scared
> someone might come up with something better.
Of course it never occured to you that there might be other reasons
not to reveal the source.
Apart from that, the whole source code to CL-PPCRE (which comprises
about 80% of the source code of the "Regex Coach") _is_ and has always
been available from my website. The GUI part of the code would only be
of real use for people who've paid US$ 900 for a Lispworks pro
license.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 16:47:45 -0500
From: Michael Carman <mjcarman@mchsi.com>
Subject: Re: Why Lisp sucks ( Re: Announcement: The regex coach )
Message-Id: <b8s4m3$s301@onews.collins.rockwell.com>
On 5/1/2003 3:36 PM, Thaddeus L. Olczyk wrote:
>
> He first announced this yesterday ( or two days ago ) in cll claiming
> it ( to paraphrase ) "proved the superiority of Lisp". He then says:
> "I wonder how I would have done this had I written the program in
> Perl... :) "
You wouldn't. You'd apply your regex to a string with "use re 'debug'"
set and look at the output. If you wanted something pretty, you'd build
a tool to parse that output and display it in some shiny format.
Still, it looks like an interesting little tool; and a useful one for
learning about and playing with regexes.
-mjc
------------------------------
Date: 6 Apr 2001 21:33:47 GMT (Last modified)
From: Perl-Users-Request@ruby.oce.orst.edu (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
Subject: Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 6 Apr 01)
Message-Id: <null>
Administrivia:
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.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.
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 V10 Issue 4923
***************************************
