[32197] in Perl-Users-Digest
Perl-Users Digest, Issue: 3462 Volume: 11
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Mon Aug 1 09:09:27 2011
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 06:09:06 -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 Mon, 1 Aug 2011 Volume: 11 Number: 3462
Today's topics:
Re: Generating an anonymous reference to an OO method <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com>
Re: Generating an anonymous reference to an OO method <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com>
Re: Generating an anonymous reference to an OO method <mvdwege@mail.com>
Re: Generating an anonymous reference to an OO method <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com>
Re: Generating an anonymous reference to an OO method <mvdwege@mail.com>
Re: Generating an anonymous reference to an OO method <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com>
Re: Generating an anonymous reference to an OO method (Randal L. Schwartz)
Re: Generating an anonymous reference to an OO method <jurgenex@hotmail.com>
Re: Generating an anonymous reference to an OO method <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com>
Re: Generating an anonymous reference to an OO method <RedGrittyBrick@spamweary.invalid>
Harcopy/book on Moose <bernie@fantasyfarm.com>
Re: Harcopy/book on Moose <mvdwege@mail.com>
Re: perl + doxygen + dbi <nospam.gravitalsun@hotmail.com.nospam>
Re: perl + doxygen + dbi <lyttlec@removegmail.com>
Re: What Programing Language are the Largest Website Wr <gavcomedy@gmail.com>
Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 6 Apr 01) (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2011 16:26:15 +0100
From: Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com>
Subject: Re: Generating an anonymous reference to an OO method
Message-Id: <87sjpmcvzc.fsf@sapphire.mobileactivedefense.com>
Tad McClellan <tadmc@seesig.invalid> writes:
> Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> wrote:
>> merlyn@stonehenge.com (Randal L. Schwartz) writes:
>>>>>>>> "Rainer" == Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> writes:
>>>
>>> Rainer> Out of curiosity, I've now also done a very cursory 'literature
>>> Rainer> search': The Camel-book, considering its usual 'no bullshit' approach
>>> Rainer> to technology', contains nothing applicable to this particular way of
>>> Rainer> using eval. Something which is easily available on the web,
>>>
>>> Rainer> [REDACTED]
>>>
>>> I really, really, really don't appreciate people posting URLs to pirated
>>> copies of O'Reilly books.
>>
>> I have no idea if this is 'a pirated copy' or a legal one (given the
>> age of the book, the latter is at least not completely
>> impossible). You referred to 'literature'. Consequently, I used Google
>> to search for 'perl eval string' and this is one of the results that
>> came back. It is pretty ridicolous to try to hold me personally
>> responsible that someone from Canada (AFAIK) but something on the web
>> which can be found by using a search engine.
>
> It is perfectly sensible to hold you responsible for
> driving traffic to illegal content by linking to it.
I have no way to determine the legal status of something returned by a
Google search and - using your logic - it must thus be perfectly
sensible to hold Google responsible for 'driving traffic to illegal
content' by linking to it. If this is actually an illegal copy, the
copyright holder needs to deal with that if he so desires. So, please
contact O'Reilly and suggest that they should type 'advanced perl
programming' into a Google search box and 'do something about
that'. That's their responsibility and neither mine nor yours.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2011 20:42:44 +0100
From: Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com>
Subject: Re: Generating an anonymous reference to an OO method
Message-Id: <87ipqifd8r.fsf@sapphire.mobileactivedefense.com>
Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> writes:
> Tad McClellan <tadmc@seesig.invalid> writes:
>> Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> wrote:
>>> merlyn@stonehenge.com (Randal L. Schwartz) writes:
>>>>>>>>> "Rainer" == Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>> Rainer> Out of curiosity, I've now also done a very cursory 'literature
>>>> Rainer> search': The Camel-book, considering its usual 'no bullshit' approach
>>>> Rainer> to technology', contains nothing applicable to this particular way of
>>>> Rainer> using eval. Something which is easily available on the web,
>>>>
>>>> Rainer> [REDACTED]
>>>>
>>>> I really, really, really don't appreciate people posting URLs to pirated
>>>> copies of O'Reilly books.
>>>
>>> I have no idea if this is 'a pirated copy' or a legal one (given the
>>> age of the book, the latter is at least not completely
>>> impossible). You referred to 'literature'. Consequently, I used Google
>>> to search for 'perl eval string' and this is one of the results that
>>> came back. It is pretty ridicolous to try to hold me personally
>>> responsible that someone from Canada (AFAIK) but something on the web
>>> which can be found by using a search engine.
>>
>> It is perfectly sensible to hold you responsible for
>> driving traffic to illegal content by linking to it.
>
> I have no way to determine the legal status of something returned by a
> Google search and - using your logic - it must thus be perfectly
> sensible to hold Google responsible for 'driving traffic to illegal
> content' by linking to it.
Additional remark: According to
http://oreilly.com/store/complete.html
it isn't even possible to order the first edition of this book from
O'Reilly anymore, at least not online. Used copies sell for as little
as £1.57. Given that it is fourteen years old and thus, massively
outdated in many respects, that's not exactly surprising. This is a
resource which is mainly of historical/ cultural interest and I'd
wager a bet the the publisher considers the commercial value of this
text to be essentially zero. Which leads to the following nice
statement:
Yow! Legally-imposed CULTURE-reduction is CABBAGE-BRAINED!
NB: I have exactly no proof that the publisher is actually interested
in 'Legally-imposed CULTURE-reduction' but perhaps the gentlemen who
claimed to know that he is would be so kind to provide one.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2011 22:05:47 +0200
From: Mart van de Wege <mvdwege@mail.com>
Subject: Re: Generating an anonymous reference to an OO method
Message-Id: <86r5569pwk.fsf@gareth.avalon.lan>
Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> writes:
> Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> writes:
>> Tad McClellan <tadmc@seesig.invalid> writes:
>>> Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> wrote:
>>>> merlyn@stonehenge.com (Randal L. Schwartz) writes:
>>>>>>>>>> "Rainer" == Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>> Rainer> Out of curiosity, I've now also done a very cursory 'literature
>>>>> Rainer> search': The Camel-book, considering its usual 'no bullshit' approach
>>>>> Rainer> to technology', contains nothing applicable to this particular way of
>>>>> Rainer> using eval. Something which is easily available on the web,
>>>>>
>>>>> Rainer> [REDACTED]
>>>>>
>>>>> I really, really, really don't appreciate people posting URLs to pirated
>>>>> copies of O'Reilly books.
>>>>
>>>> I have no idea if this is 'a pirated copy' or a legal one (given the
>>>> age of the book, the latter is at least not completely
>>>> impossible). You referred to 'literature'. Consequently, I used Google
>>>> to search for 'perl eval string' and this is one of the results that
>>>> came back. It is pretty ridicolous to try to hold me personally
>>>> responsible that someone from Canada (AFAIK) but something on the web
>>>> which can be found by using a search engine.
>>>
>>> It is perfectly sensible to hold you responsible for
>>> driving traffic to illegal content by linking to it.
>>
>> I have no way to determine the legal status of something returned by a
>> Google search and - using your logic - it must thus be perfectly
>> sensible to hold Google responsible for 'driving traffic to illegal
>> content' by linking to it.
>
> Additional remark: According to
>
> http://oreilly.com/store/complete.html
>
> it isn't even possible to order the first edition of this book from
> O'Reilly anymore, at least not online. Used copies sell for as little
> as £1.57. Given that it is fourteen years old and thus, massively
> outdated in many respects, that's not exactly surprising. This is a
> resource which is mainly of historical/ cultural interest and I'd
> wager a bet the the publisher considers the commercial value of this
> text to be essentially zero. Which leads to the following nice
> statement:
>
> Yow! Legally-imposed CULTURE-reduction is CABBAGE-BRAINED!
>
> NB: I have exactly no proof that the publisher is actually interested
> in 'Legally-imposed CULTURE-reduction' but perhaps the gentlemen who
> claimed to know that he is would be so kind to provide one.
>
Absent any statement to the contrary, you should assume that a text is
still under copyright.
I'm going to disregard your views on copyright in general, seeing as that I at
least partly agree that it is broken as practised today, but your last
paragraph is just plain stupid, for the reason outlined above.
Mart
--
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2011 21:30:39 +0100
From: Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com>
Subject: Re: Generating an anonymous reference to an OO method
Message-Id: <87ei16fb0w.fsf@sapphire.mobileactivedefense.com>
Mart van de Wege <mvdwege@mail.com> writes:
> Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> writes:
[1st ed. of 'Advanced Perl Programming]
>> Additional remark: According to
>>
>> http://oreilly.com/store/complete.html
>>
>> it isn't even possible to order the first edition of this book from
>> O'Reilly anymore, at least not online. Used copies sell for as little
>> as £1.57. Given that it is fourteen years old and thus, massively
>> outdated in many respects, that's not exactly surprising. This is a
>> resource which is mainly of historical/ cultural interest and I'd
>> wager a bet the the publisher considers the commercial value of this
>> text to be essentially zero. Which leads to the following nice
>> statement:
>>
>> Yow! Legally-imposed CULTURE-reduction is CABBAGE-BRAINED!
>>
>> NB: I have exactly no proof that the publisher is actually interested
>> in 'Legally-imposed CULTURE-reduction' but perhaps the gentlemen who
>> claimed to know that he is would be so kind to provide one.
>>
> Absent any statement to the contrary, you should assume that a text is
> still under copyright.
Since the US copyright gets extended whenever Mickey Mouse would
otherwise fall into the public domain, that's pretty certain ...
> I'm going to disregard your views on copyright in general, seeing as
> that I at least partly agree that it is broken as practised today,
> but your last paragraph is just plain stupid, for the reason
> outlined above.
... but the important question is not 'Could this technically be
regarded as illegal?' but 'Is the copyright-holder actually interested in
stopping people from making obsolete editions of books published by
him available on the web?'. And I would hope that the responsible
people have enough good sense to answer this question with 'No'.
In the context of this, it should also be noted that the 2nd edition
is not as easy to find and the place where it can be found are 'the
usual suspects', eg, RapidShare[*].
[*] Is this again a case where 'someone should really censor my
statements'? Or is 'discussion of copyright matters' still allowed in
countries where open discussion is supposed to be allowed?
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2011 22:54:25 +0200
From: Mart van de Wege <mvdwege@mail.com>
Subject: Re: Generating an anonymous reference to an OO method
Message-Id: <8662mi9nni.fsf@gareth.avalon.lan>
Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> writes:
> Mart van de Wege <mvdwege@mail.com> writes:
>> Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> writes:
>
> [1st ed. of 'Advanced Perl Programming]
>
>
>>> Additional remark: According to
>>>
>>> http://oreilly.com/store/complete.html
>>>
>>> it isn't even possible to order the first edition of this book from
>>> O'Reilly anymore, at least not online. Used copies sell for as little
>>> as £1.57. Given that it is fourteen years old and thus, massively
>>> outdated in many respects, that's not exactly surprising. This is a
>>> resource which is mainly of historical/ cultural interest and I'd
>>> wager a bet the the publisher considers the commercial value of this
>>> text to be essentially zero. Which leads to the following nice
>>> statement:
>>>
>>> Yow! Legally-imposed CULTURE-reduction is CABBAGE-BRAINED!
>>>
>>> NB: I have exactly no proof that the publisher is actually interested
>>> in 'Legally-imposed CULTURE-reduction' but perhaps the gentlemen who
>>> claimed to know that he is would be so kind to provide one.
>>>
>> Absent any statement to the contrary, you should assume that a text is
>> still under copyright.
>
> Since the US copyright gets extended whenever Mickey Mouse would
> otherwise fall into the public domain, that's pretty certain ...
>
>> I'm going to disregard your views on copyright in general, seeing as
>> that I at least partly agree that it is broken as practised today,
>> but your last paragraph is just plain stupid, for the reason
>> outlined above.
>
> ... but the important question is not 'Could this technically be
> regarded as illegal?' but 'Is the copyright-holder actually interested in
> stopping people from making obsolete editions of books published by
> him available on the web?'. And I would hope that the responsible
> people have enough good sense to answer this question with 'No'.
Well, since you're already an ass, I don't think I should have to
explain what 'assume' means to you, now should I?
Mart
--
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2011 22:02:06 +0100
From: Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com>
Subject: Re: Generating an anonymous reference to an OO method
Message-Id: <877h6yf9kh.fsf@sapphire.mobileactivedefense.com>
Mart van de Wege <mvdwege@mail.com> writes:
> Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> writes:
[...]
>> ... but the important question is not 'Could this technically be
>> regarded as illegal?' but 'Is the copyright-holder actually interested in
>> stopping people from making obsolete editions of books published by
>> him available on the web?'. And I would hope that the responsible
>> people have enough good sense to answer this question with 'No'.
>
> Well, since you're already an ass,
And that follows from me giving expression to the hope that the people
who run O'Reilly might have the generosity to at least tolerate
something like this since it is really only of historical/ cultural
interest? Or is it still supposed to follow from the fact that some
people use the internet to break all kinds of laws and that it makes
you feel better to hit a bystander than do nothing about it?
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2011 13:48:45 -0700
From: merlyn@stonehenge.com (Randal L. Schwartz)
Subject: Re: Generating an anonymous reference to an OO method
Message-Id: <86livejhw2.fsf@red.stonehenge.com>
>>>>> "Rainer" == Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> writes:
Rainer> ... but the important question is not 'Could this technically be
Rainer> regarded as illegal?' but 'Is the copyright-holder actually
Rainer> interested in stopping people from making obsolete editions of
Rainer> books published by him available on the web?'. And I would hope
Rainer> that the responsible people have enough good sense to answer
Rainer> this question with 'No'.
But that's not for you to answer. And in this case, the enforcement
group at O'Reilly takes copyrights seriously. They can and do send
takedown notices to such sites. If you see such sites, please let them
know at infringement@oreilly.com (as listed on their contacts page).
--
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
<merlyn@stonehenge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Smalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See http://methodsandmessages.posterous.com/ for Smalltalk discussion
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2011 14:18:59 -0700
From: Jürgen Exner <jurgenex@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Generating an anonymous reference to an OO method
Message-Id: <7ahb37pu6so73m5452ichm87vmrr25854e@4ax.com>
Mart van de Wege <mvdwege@mail.com> wrote:
>Absent any statement to the contrary, you should assume that a text is
>still under copyright.
Actually copyright is a natural law, i.e. a work of art/science/...
automatically becomes copyrighted the moment it is created and even the
author/artist/creator cannot waive this right. At most he can transfer
the rights to another party.
This copyright expires after 75(?) years. Therefore, unless this piece
of art/science/literature/... is more than 75 years old, someone is
still holding the copyright, maybe the author, maybe some publisher,
maybe someone else.
And yes, this even goes for freeware. There the author is the legal
copyright holder, but he allows free use of the code. If he weren't the
copyright holder then he would have no legal right to allow any use.
jue
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2011 22:24:49 +0100
From: Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com>
Subject: Re: Generating an anonymous reference to an OO method
Message-Id: <8739hmf8im.fsf@sapphire.mobileactivedefense.com>
merlyn@stonehenge.com (Randal L. Schwartz) writes:
>>>>>> "Rainer" == Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> writes:
>
> Rainer> ... but the important question is not 'Could this technically be
> Rainer> regarded as illegal?' but 'Is the copyright-holder actually
> Rainer> interested in stopping people from making obsolete editions of
> Rainer> books published by him available on the web?'. And I would hope
> Rainer> that the responsible people have enough good sense to answer
> Rainer> this question with 'No'.
>
> But that's not for you to answer. And in this case, the enforcement
> group at O'Reilly takes copyrights seriously. They can and do send
> takedown notices to such sites. If you see such sites, please let
> them know at infringement@oreilly.com (as listed on their contacts
> page).
And it's also not for me to police. While I won't dispute that the
publisher has every right to act in this way, I nevertheless consider
this a regrettable policy in cases like this. Apart from that, I will
take your word on this and will - in future - refrain from posting
such links.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 11:25:43 +0100
From: RedGrittyBrick <RedGrittyBrick@spamweary.invalid>
Subject: Re: Generating an anonymous reference to an OO method
Message-Id: <4e367f29$0$2523$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>
On 31/07/2011 22:18, Jürgen Exner wrote:
> Mart van de Wege<mvdwege@mail.com> wrote:
>> Absent any statement to the contrary, you should assume that a text is
>> still under copyright.
>
> Actually copyright is a natural law, i.e. a work of art/science/...
> automatically becomes copyrighted the moment it is created and even the
> author/artist/creator cannot waive this right. At most he can transfer
> the rights to another party.
> This copyright expires after 75(?) years.
It varies by country.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries%27_copyright_length
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_the_shorter_term
> Therefore, unless this piece
> of art/science/literature/... is more than 75 years old, someone is
> still holding the copyright, maybe the author, maybe some publisher,
> maybe someone else.
Posting links to unauthorised copies of copyright material is almost as
bad as confusing Canada (.ca) with Ukraine (.ua). ;-)
--
RGB
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2011 12:52:04 -0400
From: Bernie Cosell <bernie@fantasyfarm.com>
Subject: Harcopy/book on Moose
Message-Id: <6s0b37tfn174q2ngnmn64vcn6rn8uef2pb@library.airnews.net>
Is there a document or book on Moose? The only references I've found are
the man pages, which has Moose divided into something like eight different
docs ::Classes, ::Justification, etc, etc, and good, but not very
hardcopy-able websites. Is there a .pdf or book or something [I'm afraid
I'm very very old school and I really need a hardcopy doc "in my hands" to
absorb something like Moose]. THANKS!!
/Bernie\
--
Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers
bernie@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA
--> Too many people, too few sheep <--
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2011 21:56:37 +0200
From: Mart van de Wege <mvdwege@mail.com>
Subject: Re: Harcopy/book on Moose
Message-Id: <86vcui9qbu.fsf@gareth.avalon.lan>
Bernie Cosell <bernie@fantasyfarm.com> writes:
> Is there a document or book on Moose? The only references I've found are
> the man pages, which has Moose divided into something like eight different
> docs ::Classes, ::Justification, etc, etc, and good, but not very
> hardcopy-able websites. Is there a .pdf or book or something [I'm afraid
> I'm very very old school and I really need a hardcopy doc "in my hands" to
> absorb something like Moose]. THANKS!!
>
Not quite Moose-only, but 'The Definitive Guide to Catalyst' by Kieren
Diment, Matt Trout and others contains a very good introduction to
Moose.
I found it very helpful at least.
'Modern Perl' by chromatic also has a lot on Moose. That one is even
available for free at http://www.modernperlbooks.com/mt/index.html
Mart
--
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2011 23:07:40 +0300
From: George Mpouras <nospam.gravitalsun@hotmail.com.nospam>
Subject: Re: perl + doxygen + dbi
Message-Id: <j14cma$2nui$1@news.ntua.gr>
On 07/31/2011 12:11 AM, lyttlec wrote:
> eded to prepare the documents and dbi input is in the XML files
> generated by doxygen. I would like to use perl scripts and/or doxygen
> layout files to automate the process.
>
> Can anyone give me some pointers? I've searched google and the only
> results have been to hand-edit the latex files.
can you provide a sample ?
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2011 22:46:49 -0400
From: lyttlec <lyttlec@removegmail.com>
Subject: Re: perl + doxygen + dbi
Message-Id: <j1542q$dij$1@speranza.aioe.org>
On 07/31/2011 04:07 PM, George Mpouras wrote:
> On 07/31/2011 12:11 AM, lyttlec wrote:
>> eded to prepare the documents and dbi input is in the XML files
>> generated by doxygen. I would like to use perl scripts and/or doxygen
>> layout files to automate the process.
>>
>> Can anyone give me some pointers? I've searched google and the only
>> results have been to hand-edit the latex files.
>
> can you provide a sample ?
Government standards require lots of documents hat largely repeat the
info found in standard Doxygen refman.tex.
For example :
(Doxygen also generates an XML version)
<in refman.tex>
\begin{titlepage}
\vspace*{7cm}
\begin{center}
{\Large PROJECT NAME\\
\vspace*{1cm}
{\large Generated by Doxygen 1.7.1}\\
\vspace*{0.5cm}
{\small Sun Jul 31 2011 20:31:10}\\
\end{center}
\end{titlepage}
...
\chapter{File Index}
\input{files}
\chapter{File Documentation}
\input{some__file_8h}
\input{some__file_8c}
\input{another__file_8c}
\input{another__file_8h}
\printindex
some__file_8h.tex might contain
\subsection*{ENUMERATIONS}
\item
typedef enum \hyperlink{...} {first_enum} \{
\hyperlink{...}{FIRST_MEMBER},
\hyperlink{...}{SECOND_MEMBER}, etc
}
with similar subsections for functions, variables, and so on.
Each file, function, variable, etc will have a unique identifier that
can be used as a key.
The generic problem is to extract data from one latex (or XML) file and
put it in another. In this simple case everything in refman.tex after
\chapter{...} would be copied out into SoftwareDesignDescription.tex and
data associated with each unique identifier in the input files go into a
Data Dictionary.
I'm not asking anyone to solve the problem for me, but a solution for
the generic problem would be helpful.
Thanks.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2011 11:38:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: gavino <gavcomedy@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: What Programing Language are the Largest Website Written In?
Message-Id: <e73609a7-1b89-4cb1-95ce-7a67e3c1baa5@u28g2000prm.googlegroups.com>
On Jul 13, 1:04 pm, ccc31807 <carte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 12, 7:54 am, Xah Lee <xah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > maybe this will be of interest.
>
> > =A1=B4What Programing Language Are the Largest Website Written In?=A1=
=B5http://xahlee.org/comp/website_lang_popularity.html
>
> About five years ago, I did some pretty extensive research, and
> concluded that the biggest sites were written serverside with JSP.
> Obviously, this wouldn't include The Biggest site, but if you were a
> big, multinational corporation, or listed on the NYSE, you used JSP
> for your web programming.
>
> I doubt very seriously PHP is used for the biggest sites -- I'd still
> guess JSP, or maybe a MS technology (not VB), but it's only a guess.
>
> CC.
facebook is php
myspace is microsoft
aol was tcl and aolserver c embedding tcl interp
priceline is lisp
reddit is python was lisp orig
amazon was perl
livejournal was perl
------------------------------
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:
To submit articles to comp.lang.perl.announce, send your article to
clpa@perl.com.
Back issues are available via anonymous ftp from
ftp://cil-www.oce.orst.edu/pub/perl/old-digests.
#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 V11 Issue 3462
***************************************
