[8051] in Perl-Users-Digest
Perl-Users Digest, Issue: 1676 Volume: 8
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Mon Jan 19 18:17:20 1998
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 98 15:01:30 -0800
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, 19 Jan 1998 Volume: 8 Number: 1676
Today's topics:
Re: source into binary code <shimpei+nospam+nospam+caltech.edu@socrates.caltech.edu>
Re: source into binary code <rjc@liddell.cstr.ed.ac.uk>
Re: source into binary code (John Stanley)
Re: source into binary code (John Stanley)
Re: source into binary code (John Stanley)
Re: source into binary code (Martien Verbruggen)
Re: source into binary code <jason@primal.ucdavis.edu>
Statistics for comp.lang.perl.misc <gbacon@cs.uah.edu>
Re: Switch statement in Perl-5??? (Greg Bacon)
Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 8 Mar 97) (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 19 Jan 1998 20:53:54 GMT
From: Shimpei Yamashita <shimpei+nospam+nospam+caltech.edu@socrates.caltech.edu>
Subject: Re: source into binary code
Message-Id: <6a0eh2$ecf@gap.cco.caltech.edu>
John Stanley <stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU> writes:
>In article <6a01j5$emr$1@client2.news.psi.net>,
>Abigail <abigail@fnx.com> wrote:
>>John Stanley (stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU) wrote on 1602 September 1993
>>in <URL: news:69urj2$d01$1@news.orst.edu>:
>>++ Because Dan's code runs reliably. Because Dan will support it if it
>>++ doesn't. Because it runs on the platform it is needed on. Because it
>
>>Then Dan's and Betty's code aren't equivalent and Betty's code can't
>>be regarded as an 'easy alternative' for Dan's.
>
>Of course it is an equivalent to Betty's, if all you want to do is foo
>and don't care about support or quality. If all you want to do is foo,
>then Betty's code is just fine. The criterion you presented was "does
>foo". I just made your example fit real life a little more by adding in
>other factors that sometimes mean more to the user than just "does
>foo".
>
Your analogy may be valid if source-available software in general were
inferior in quality to source-unavailable software, the authors of the
software don't give a diddly whether it actually works or not, and
people only used the former because they can steal the source. This,
however, is not the case. There are many fields in which
source-available software can easily compete with source-unavailable
software: emacs, gcc, Linux, and of course perl, just to name a few.
The authors of these tools do care about how their tools work, and the
bugs get fixed a lot more quickly than for most commercial offerings.
I would probably use all of the above even if I couldn't get the
source code, although the lack of source code may have discouraged me
from trying some of them out in the first place.
As for support, I have gotten more support for free software, gratis,
through newsgroups than I ever have for any of the software I have
paid for. I'm hardly alone in this. Come to think of it, a good deal
of the "support" I have gotten for the software I *have* paid for came
free through newsgroups too. Kind of makes you wonder about what
"Dan" is going to give you for the money compared to "Betty".
This is not to say that source-available software is universally
better than source-unavailable software (for example, there is no
source-available word processor that can compete with Word yet
that I know of--and no, lyx doesn't count). But in the "real
world," it doesn't necessarily hold that Betty's offering is inferior
to Dan's just because Betty has released her source code.
--
Shimpei Yamashita <http://www.patnet.caltech.edu/%7Eshimpei/>
The address I have listed in the headers is a working address. It just
looks like it's an invalid address in order to fool spammers collecting
addresses from newsgroups.
------------------------------
Date: 19 Jan 1998 21:12:15 +0000
From: Richard Caley <rjc@liddell.cstr.ed.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: source into binary code
Message-Id: <eyhg1mkdv80.fsf@liddell.cstr.ed.ac.uk>
In article <6a03rd$ako$1@news.orst.edu>, John Stanley (js) writes:
In article <6a010v$74g$1@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>, Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com> wrote:
js> :I have yet to see anyone refuse to buy Excel or Word because it wasn't
js> :available in source.
tc> Me.
js> Somehow I doubt that Microsoft will go bankrupt because of it. I doubt
js> that they even noticed.
Well, me too. then. :-)
Point is there are such people.
Of course, it's a matter of the use it's to be put to. Most people
don't need the detailed specifications of their HiFi either. That
doesn't mean there aren't people who will refuse to buy an amplifier
unless they have enough information to use it in unexpected
situations.
--
rjc@cstr.ed.ac.uk _O_
|<
------------------------------
Date: 19 Jan 1998 21:23:36 GMT
From: stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley)
Subject: Re: source into binary code
Message-Id: <6a0g8o$evo$1@news.orst.edu>
In article <6a0eh2$ecf@gap.cco.caltech.edu>,
Shimpei Yamashita <shimpei+nospam+nospam+caltech.edu@socrates.caltech.edu> wrote:
>John Stanley <stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU> writes:
>>foo". I just made your example fit real life a little more by adding in
>>other factors that sometimes mean more to the user than just "does
>>foo".
>>
>
>Your analogy may be valid if source-available software in general were
>inferior in quality to source-unavailable software, the authors of the
>software don't give a diddly whether it actually works or not, and
>people only used the former because they can steal the source. This,
There was no analogy. There was a hypothetical example, created by
someone else. I simply brought up the factors that real people might
consider before using free software.
If you don't believe that what I suggested can be a factor, then explain
1) creeping featuritis, which shows that "does more than foo" is
generally desirable, 2) Cygnus Software, which will sell you support for
gcc -- which, if you might notice, changes gcc not a whit, so your
comments about relative quality are specious.
>The authors of these tools do care about how their tools work, and the
>bugs get fixed a lot more quickly than for most commercial offerings.
Hmmmm. Maybe. Maybe not. But when I have a perl question, there is
nobody to call to say "what's the answer". Yes, there is a newsgroup,
but a large percentage of the answers there are "read the FAQ." Some
people like to pay for the ability to call someone for an answer instead
of taking a day or two to read the whole manual just to see if it might
be there. That's called "support", and it is a reason that people will pay
for software.
>As for support, I have gotten more support for free software, gratis,
>through newsgroups than I ever have for any of the software I have
>paid for.
That's nice. If you trust the answers you get in newsgroups, and can
wait for the answer, and don't get told "read the FAQ", that's nice.
There are people who don't have time to play in news.
>This is not to say that source-available software is universally
>better than source-unavailable software
Nor have I said the opposite, although it seemed important for you to
debate that with me.
>that I know of--and no, lyx doesn't count). But in the "real
>world," it doesn't necessarily hold that Betty's offering is inferior
>to Dan's just because Betty has released her source code.
I didn't say it was. I was giving examples of why people might pay for
something they could get for free, and pointing out that they might not
be getting everything when they chose the free option.
------------------------------
Date: 19 Jan 1998 21:52:47 GMT
From: stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley)
Subject: Re: source into binary code
Message-Id: <6a0hvf$3hi$1@news.orst.edu>
In article <6a0dg5$20k$1@info.uah.edu>, Greg Bacon <gbacon@adtran.com> wrote:
>If that is how you've read what people have been trying to tell you,
>then you misunderstand. Let's take a stroll down Sesame Street:
Yes, let's.
>Tom Phoenix wrote in
> <Pine.GSO.3.96.980117174340.1296G-100000@user2.teleport.com>:
> "You can make a good living by giving away the source while
> retaining or selling the rights to use it."
>
>Again, the claim isn't that you're making a living by giving away
>software.
"Source", in the perl context, is "software". Yes, indeed, the
statement was quite clear: "you can make a good living by giving away the
source...". What you failed to recall in your trip down memory lane is
that I agreed with this statement, or one just like it, with the
condition that you need to be able to enforce your rights to limit who
uses your software for it to be true. With perl, you cannot. With perl,
if you give the source away, you give the ability to use it away.
>...or perhaps it's just me, and I'm reading between some obscure, hidden
>lines in both of these guys' posts. Nevertheless, I believe firmly in
>the free software movement and have myself made decent money by charging
>for the time it took me to write software which I retained the right to
>make freely available.
I have never questioned the "free software movement" for those who wish
to follow that path. Yes, there's lots of great free software out
there, and I use lots of it every day. I am also not trying to make a
living by giving away software, so I can afford to give what I write
away, too.
What I question is the attitude of the "free software movement" that,
because it is good enough for them, it is the way everyone must
operate.
I also note yet another example of how you make a living by giving
software away based on the facts that you make a living by charging for
the software. You make a living by charging for the time to write the
software, not by giving it way. It's great that you give it away.
>Source hoarders be damned.
My my, yes, that attitude I was just talking about.
First, it isn't "hoarding" if you want to sell your code. It's called
"capitalism", and "entrepreneurial spirit". You don't make money if you
hoard, you make money if you sell.
But, more important, if you don't want to use their source, write your
own and don't pay for theirs. Nobody forces you to use their code, just
like nobody forces you to give yours away. You have no grounds to demand
their services, just like nobody has a right to demand yours.
------------------------------
Date: 19 Jan 1998 22:04:21 GMT
From: stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley)
Subject: Re: source into binary code
Message-Id: <6a0il5$abi$1@news.orst.edu>
In article <eyhg1mkdv80.fsf@liddell.cstr.ed.ac.uk>,
Richard Caley <rjc@liddell.cstr.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>Well, me too. then. :-)
>
>Point is there are such people.
Yes, and if you had read my original statement, you would see that I
said only that I didn't know of any, but that they might exist. My point
is, so what? I'm sure that Bill Gates isn't considering releasing the
source for Word just because you didn't buy it.
>Of course, it's a matter of the use it's to be put to. Most people
>don't need the detailed specifications of their HiFi either. That
>doesn't mean there aren't people who will refuse to buy an amplifier
>unless they have enough information to use it in unexpected
>situations.
And the HiFi company balances the cost of lost sales against the costs
of providing full schematics for each amplifier and makes their
decision. The few sales they lose cost less than what they would need
to pay to fix amplifiers that home handymen thought they could fix
themselves (or "lets modify the code to do this special bit... oops, it
doesn't work anymore.") And what if all it took to make an amplifier was
to show the schematic to a computer -- with no costs for parts or labor,
who would be buying the amplifier from the manufacturer anymore when
they can get it for free? How would you stop people from Xeroxing the
schematic and giving it to their friends?
------------------------------
Date: 19 Jan 1998 21:58:48 GMT
From: mgjv@comdyn.com.au (Martien Verbruggen)
Subject: Re: source into binary code
Message-Id: <6a0iao$i7a$2@comdyn.comdyn.com.au>
In article <69urj2$d01$1@news.orst.edu>,
stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) writes:
>>> Certainly Dan has succeeded in "protected" his code, by making it
>>> harder to read the source than Betty's. So, why should people use
>>> Dan's code at all?
>
> Because Dan's code runs reliably. Because Dan will support it if it
> doesn't. Because it runs on the platform it is needed on. Because it
> does bar and bletch as well as foo. Because the report it creates
> when it finishes doing foo is compatible with the corporate database.
> Because they are part of a corporate culture that doesn't like free
> software because there is no support and nobody to sue if it breaks.
Software that is obscure in the way it works (read: isn't available in
source code) is not necessarily supported better than source code.
Software that has to be paid for doesn't necessarily have better
support than freely available software (think perl, GNU project).
The difference is that if someone stops supporting their software, the
one that comes with source can be adapted by someone else. The one
that is 'obscured' cannot, and therefore turns worthless. A product
has to be very much better than a free/source code product, and the
company releasing it has to be a lot more trustworthy for me to decide
that the commercial/obscured product is the way to go.
I find it a bit odd that you are on this group, and use perl, if you
believe that commercial/obscure software is better. Why aren't you
using visual basic, or c++ or some other commercial package? I am sure
that you will be able to get support out of Microsoft. I never
succeeded..
Martien
--
Martien Verbruggen |
Webmaster www.tradingpost.com.au | Inside every anarchy lurks an old boy
Commercial Dynamics Pty. Ltd. | network - Mitchell Kapor
NSW, Australia |
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 14:36:46 -0800
From: Jason Christian <jason@primal.ucdavis.edu>
Subject: Re: source into binary code
Message-Id: <Pine.OSF.3.95.980119141329.24048A-100000@primal.ucdavis.edu>
On 19 Jan 1998, John Stanley wrote:
> In article <6a0dg5$20k$1@info.uah.edu>, Greg Bacon <gbacon@adtran.com> wrote:
> >If that is how you've read what people have been trying to tell you,
> >then you misunderstand. Let's take a stroll down Sesame Street:
>
> Yes, let's.
>
> >Tom Phoenix wrote in
> > <Pine.GSO.3.96.980117174340.1296G-100000@user2.teleport.com>:
> > "You can make a good living by giving away the source while
> > retaining or selling the rights to use it."
> >
> >Again, the claim isn't that you're making a living by giving away
> >software.
>
> "Source", in the perl context, is "software". Yes, indeed, the
> statement was quite clear: "you can make a good living by giving away the
> source...". What you failed to recall in your trip down memory lane is
> that I agreed with this statement, or one just like it, with the
> condition that you need to be able to enforce your rights to limit who
> uses your software for it to be true. With perl, you cannot. With perl,
> if you give the source away, you give the ability to use it away.
>
> >...or perhaps it's just me, and I'm reading between some obscure, hidden
> >lines in both of these guys' posts. Nevertheless, I believe firmly in
> >the free software movement and have myself made decent money by charging
> >for the time it took me to write software which I retained the right to
> >make freely available.
>
> I have never questioned the "free software movement" for those who wish
> to follow that path. Yes, there's lots of great free software out
> there, and I use lots of it every day. I am also not trying to make a
> living by giving away software, so I can afford to give what I write
> away, too.
>
> What I question is the attitude of the "free software movement" that,
> because it is good enough for them, it is the way everyone must
> operate.
> I also note yet another example of how you make a living by giving
> software away based on the facts that you make a living by charging for
> the software. You make a living by charging for the time to write the
> software, not by giving it way. It's great that you give it away.
>
> >Source hoarders be damned.
>
> My my, yes, that attitude I was just talking about.
Right now I am paying a programmer to develop a system to help run a
business that my family operates. Alas, using a M$ "OS". This is the
third version of the software, and I think we are getting better at it.
Our first version was written by a very smart guy who had dreams of
writing a hugely profitable package of some sort and retiring to the
Bahamas on the royalties, and he wrote a lot of highly restrictive
language into the contract which essentially ensured that he (and only
he) could do anything with the source when he was finished. It was a
good program for a while, but by the time we got around to upgrading it
he had joined a cult and lost interest in practical programming.
Version 2 had much better accounting capabilities, carried no horrid language
in the license, but was written in "TAS", an obscure accounting system
that only our programmer used, so it was as impossible to upgrade as the
first program. Now on version 3, *at least* I can look at and edit the
code (and cuss at the Windows foolishness), and I have the right to do
*whatever I want* with the code when we are finished. By the same
token, the programmer can reuse the code however he wants for subsequent
clients. We pay him, quite well, for his time; the cost of our project
is somewhat less than it might have been otherwise, since he recently
finished a broadly similar system for another business that is in
roughly the same business as ours.
I believe that our relationship is consistent with "free software." We
are not asking, nor receiving, "something for nothing," and our
programmer is not using us to create a package to sell for a zillion
dollars down the road.
There are two different ethoses (what the hell is the plural of ethos?)
here. One is the ethos of the manufacturer of products, who wants to
crank out a zillion, err, widgets, and charge a price for those widgets.
That is an okay ethos, but need not apply to all transactions. The
other ethos is that of the professional, like a physician, an attorney,
and engineer, even (from time to time) an economist. Or of a craftsman
artisan. Professionals
serve clients faithfully, and charge them for the time they have spent
on the project. What the client does with the project is the client's
business...but the client does not restrict the artisan's or
professional's ability to carry out his trade or profession.
> First, it isn't "hoarding" if you want to sell your code. It's called
> "capitalism", and "entrepreneurial spirit". You don't make money if you
> hoard, you make money if you sell.
>
> But, more important, if you don't want to use their source, write your
> own and don't pay for theirs. Nobody forces you to use their code, just
> like nobody forces you to give yours away. You have no grounds to demand
> their services, just like nobody has a right to demand yours.
That's true. But I will not employ you to develop software for me if
you won't let me fix the software after you go join a cult.
"Free Software" is really, I think, a statement of professionalism and
professional ethics, and can in a great many places serve both client
and server. The world is full of businesses large and small for which
the canned solutions offered by micro$oft just don't suffice; if you
want to serve us, you must follow the path of the professional, which is
a different occupation from the inventor of and manufacturer of geegaws
and toys.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Christian University of California, Davis
jason@primal.ucdavis.edu Agricultural and Resource Economics
Office:(530)752-1357 FAX:(530)752-5614 Davis, CA 95616
------------------------------
Date: 19 Jan 1998 22:10:14 GMT
From: Greg Bacon <gbacon@cs.uah.edu>
Subject: Statistics for comp.lang.perl.misc
Message-Id: <6a0j06$20k$4@info.uah.edu>
Following is a summary of articles spanning a 7 day period,
beginning at 12 Jan 1998 20:05:31 GMT and ending at
19 Jan 1998 18:03:31 GMT.
Notes
=====
- A line in the body of a post is considered to be original if it
does *not* match the regular expression /^\s{0,3}(?:>|:|\S+>|\+\+)/.
- All text after the last cut line (/^-- $/) in the body is
considered to be the author's signature.
- The scanner prefers the Reply-To: header over the From: header
in determining the "real" e-mail address and name.
- Original Content Rating is the ratio of the original content volume
to the total body volume.
- Please send all comments to Greg Bacon <gbacon@cs.uah.edu>.
Excluded Posters
================
perlfaq-suggestions\@mox\.perl\.com
Totals
======
Posters: 488
Articles: 1201 (437 with cutlined signatures)
Threads: 422
Volume generated: 1944.2 kb
- headers: 824.6 kb (16,870 lines)
- bodies: 1038.8 kb (33,158 lines)
- original: 750.8 kb (25,697 lines)
- signatures: 79.7 kb (1,705 lines)
Original Content Rating: 0.723
Averages
========
Posts per poster: 2.5
median: 1.0 post
mode: 1 post - 340 posters
s: 6.0 posts
Posts per thread: 2.8
median: 2.0 posts
mode: 1 post - 137 threads
s: 3.2 posts
Message size: 1657.7 bytes
- header: 703.1 bytes (14.0 lines)
- body: 885.7 bytes (27.6 lines)
- original: 640.2 bytes (21.4 lines)
- signature: 67.9 bytes (1.4 lines)
Top 10 Posters by Number of Posts
=================================
(kb) (kb) (kb) (kb)
Posts Volume ( hdr/ body/ orig) Address
----- -------------------------- -------
76 121.8 ( 66.3/ 39.7/ 24.1) Tom Phoenix <rootbeer@teleport.com>
68 98.0 ( 52.5/ 37.4/ 22.0) comdog@computerdog.com (brian d foy)
48 69.9 ( 36.4/ 33.5/ 18.6) joseph@5sigma.com
34 54.3 ( 24.0/ 23.4/ 15.9) mgjv@comdyn.com.au (Martien Verbruggen)
28 43.6 ( 16.4/ 27.1/ 17.5) tadmc@flash.net (Tad McClellan)
25 42.8 ( 20.3/ 22.5/ 11.6) rjk@coos.dartmouth.edu
24 33.2 ( 13.0/ 17.6/ 11.0) clay@panix.com (Clay Irving)
21 35.7 ( 14.9/ 20.7/ 13.0) jdporter@min.net
18 35.4 ( 15.8/ 18.5/ 7.3) abigail@fnx.com
14 32.8 ( 10.8/ 20.1/ 17.4) tchrist@mox.perl.com (Tom Christiansen)
These posters accounted for 29.6% of all articles.
Top 10 Posters by Volume
========================
(kb) (kb) (kb) (kb)
Volume ( hdr/ body/ orig) Posts Address
-------------------------- ----- -------
121.8 ( 66.3/ 39.7/ 24.1) 76 Tom Phoenix <rootbeer@teleport.com>
98.0 ( 52.5/ 37.4/ 22.0) 68 comdog@computerdog.com (brian d foy)
69.9 ( 36.4/ 33.5/ 18.6) 48 joseph@5sigma.com
54.3 ( 24.0/ 23.4/ 15.9) 34 mgjv@comdyn.com.au (Martien Verbruggen)
43.6 ( 16.4/ 27.1/ 17.5) 28 tadmc@flash.net (Tad McClellan)
42.8 ( 20.3/ 22.5/ 11.6) 25 rjk@coos.dartmouth.edu
35.7 ( 14.9/ 20.7/ 13.0) 21 jdporter@min.net
35.4 ( 15.8/ 18.5/ 7.3) 18 abigail@fnx.com
33.2 ( 13.0/ 17.6/ 11.0) 24 clay@panix.com (Clay Irving)
32.8 ( 10.8/ 20.1/ 17.4) 14 tchrist@mox.perl.com (Tom Christiansen)
These posters accounted for 29.2% of the total volume.
Top 10 Posters by OCR (minimum of five posts)
==============================================
(kb) (kb)
OCR orig / body Posts Address
----- -------------- ----- -------
1.000 ( 6.7 / 6.7) 8 gabor@vinyl.quickweb.com (Gabor)
0.999 ( 1.6 / 1.6) 6 jahnel@xarch.tu-graz.ac.at
0.995 ( 8.1 / 8.1) 6 pudge@pobox.com (Chris Nandor)
0.968 ( 6.7 / 6.9) 10 fl_aggie@thepentagon.com (I R A Aggie)
0.939 ( 6.7 / 7.1) 5 Andrew Johnson <ajohnson@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca>
0.901 ( 5.5 / 6.1) 5 "David J. Boyd" <djboyd@sam.on-net.net>
0.894 ( 3.3 / 3.7) 5 petdance@maxx.mc.net (Andy Lester)
0.867 ( 17.4 / 20.1) 14 tchrist@mox.perl.com (Tom Christiansen)
0.851 ( 9.6 / 11.3) 9 aml@world.std.com (Andrew M. Langmead)
0.842 ( 2.0 / 2.4) 5 @mediacity.com.sg
Bottom 10 Posters by OCR (minimum of five posts)
=================================================
(kb) (kb)
OCR orig / body Posts Address
----- -------------- ----- -------
0.549 ( 6.8 / 12.4) 13 Eli the Bearded <*@qz.to>
0.536 ( 1.4 / 2.6) 6 bart.mediamind@tornado.be (Bart Lateur)
0.517 ( 4.0 / 7.8) 7 ? the platypus {aka David Formosa} <dformosa@st.nepean.uws.edu.au>
0.517 ( 11.6 / 22.5) 25 rjk@coos.dartmouth.edu
0.468 ( 1.8 / 3.9) 6 Eric Bohlman <ebohlman@netcom.com>
0.442 ( 2.0 / 4.6) 9 mjtg@cus.cam.ac.uk (M.J.T. Guy)
0.433 ( 4.0 / 9.2) 7 Dan Boorstein <dboorstein@ixl.com>
0.394 ( 2.6 / 6.6) 10 ced@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Charles DeRykus)
0.393 ( 7.3 / 18.5) 18 abigail@fnx.com
0.318 ( 2.8 / 8.8) 5 Dan Boorstein <danboo@negia.net>
Top 10 Threads by Number of Posts
=================================
Posts Subject
----- -------
52 source into binary code
16 Re: Can I create a Linked List in Perl
15 Re: Displaying GIFs - oops
11 Re: perl -- a language for LEARNING programming?
11 Logical 'and' in regex?
11 Re: Testing for valid numeric values
11 Comparing strings
10 Re: EMTY FILE?
9 Re: Puzzling behavior of c.l.p.* readers
8 Re: Read STDERR from child?
These threads accounted for 12.8% of all articles.
Top 10 Threads by Volume
========================
(kb) (kb) (kb) (kb)
Volume ( hdr/ body/ orig) Posts Subject
-------------------------- ----- -------
103.3 ( 43.6/ 57.0/ 32.7) 52 source into binary code
33.9 ( 13.1/ 20.5/ 11.7) 16 Re: Can I create a Linked List in Perl
22.9 ( 1.9/ 20.6/ 19.3) 3 Problem running HTML Processor script
22.6 ( 0.7/ 21.9/ 21.9) 1 Problem compiling 5.004-04 on Linux
22.2 ( 7.2/ 14.8/ 10.2) 11 Re: perl -- a language for LEARNING programming?
21.7 ( 12.4/ 7.7/ 4.8) 15 Re: Displaying GIFs - oops
18.1 ( 7.9/ 9.5/ 4.2) 11 Logical 'and' in regex?
16.1 ( 5.3/ 10.0/ 7.3) 8 Re: Read STDERR from child?
15.8 ( 8.2/ 7.1/ 3.9) 11 Comparing strings
15.0 ( 4.4/ 9.9/ 6.8) 7 Critique My Code! (Please)
These threads accounted for 15.0% of the total volume.
Top 10 Threads by OCR (minimum of five posts)
==============================================
(kb) (kb)
OCR orig / body Posts Subject
----- -------------- ----- -------
0.938 ( 10.1/ 10.8) 5 Re: use File::Find; ! on MacPerl ?
0.853 ( 2.9/ 3.4) 5 Perl dies with segmentation fault and leaves a core
0.820 ( 4.5/ 5.5) 6 Objects as keys for a hash table
0.814 ( 6.2/ 7.6) 6 Problems installing perl5.004_01 on HPUX10.20
0.813 ( 3.0/ 3.6) 5 mkdir syntax...
0.799 ( 3.9/ 4.9) 7 Re: C-style assert()ions
0.793 ( 3.4/ 4.3) 5 simple Perl question
0.790 ( 2.0/ 2.5) 5 Re: converting file names down a directory tree
0.785 ( 5.0/ 6.3) 7 getpwnam on Solaris not giving me password?
0.772 ( 4.2/ 5.4) 5 Reg Expression, Case change of memory variables
Bottom 10 Threads by OCR (minimum of five posts)
=================================================
(kb) (kb)
OCR orig / body Posts Subject
----- -------------- ----- -------
0.564 ( 0.9 / 1.6) 6 How to do random pornography in Perl.
0.555 ( 2.8 / 5.0) 6 Efficiency: for high number indicies, use array or hash?
0.553 ( 3.9 / 7.1) 11 Comparing strings
0.542 ( 1.9 / 3.4) 6 globs passed from command line
0.495 ( 2.6 / 5.2) 6 Multi-line input: fastest way?
0.492 ( 1.6 / 3.2) 6 Re: sending emails with perl ?
0.473 ( 2.4 / 5.0) 8 Re: reg exp question
0.472 ( 2.1 / 4.5) 6 Help with my code please
0.438 ( 4.2 / 9.5) 11 Logical 'and' in regex?
0.424 ( 1.8 / 4.2) 6 Re: Perl to Binary?
Top 10 Targets for Crossposts
=============================
Articles Newsgroup
-------- ---------
30 comp.lang.perl.modules
20 alt.fan.e-t-b
6 comp.lang.perl
6 comp.lang.perl.tk
6 alt.feedme
4 alt.perl.sockets
3 comp.unix.shell
3 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
3 comp.infosystems.www.servers.ms-windows
3 comp.unix.misc
Top 10 Crossposters
===================
Articles Address
-------- -------
14 Eli the Bearded <*@qz.to>
11 Markus Fleck <fleck@informatik.uni-bonn.de>
6 "David J. Boyd" <djboyd@sam.on-net.net>
4 comdog@computerdog.com (brian d foy)
4 jwoods@globalsight.com
3 mjtg@cus.cam.ac.uk (M.J.T. Guy)
3 Larry D'Anna <ldanna@hotmail.com>
3 jdporter@min.net
2 eryq@zeegee.com
2 avivc@amdocs.com
------------------------------
Date: 19 Jan 1998 22:32:53 GMT
From: gbacon@adtran.com (Greg Bacon)
To: "David Mohorn" <david.mohorn@sourcebbs.com>
Subject: Re: Switch statement in Perl-5???
Message-Id: <6a0kal$20k$7@info.uah.edu>
[Posted and mailed]
In article <01bd2500$72bda1e0$315c5499@user.ncr.com>,
"David Mohorn" <david.mohorn@sourcebbs.com> writes:
: What? Perl-5 doesn't have a switch statement like C? How can I do a
: menu?
Build your own jumptable, ya lousy bum! :-)
my %opt = (
'a' => \&annihilate_the_world,
'i' => \&inspect_iraqi_weapon_site,
'd' => \&depose_irritant,
's' => \&spend_baby_spend,
'r' => \&rant_about_matters_political,
);
my $opt;
my @args = (1, 2, 3);
while (1) {
print <<EOBanner;
Here are your choices:
A)nnihilate the world
I)nspect Iraqi weapon site
D)epose irritant
S)pend, baby, spend!
R)ant about matters political
Q)uit
EOBanner
print "Hello. Would you like to play a game? ";
chomp($opt = <STDIN>);
$opt = lc $opt;
if ($opt eq 'q') {
last;
}
elsif (exists $opt{$opt}) {
$opt{$opt}->(@args);
}
else {
print "I don't know how to play that game.\n";
}
}
Wasn't that fun?
Hope this helps,
Greg
--
open G,"|gzip -dc";$_=<<EOF;s/([0-9a-f]+)/print G pack"h*",$1/eg
f1b88000b620f22320303fa2d2e21584ccbcf29c84d2258084
d2ac158c84c4ece4d22d1000118a8d5491000000
EOF
------------------------------
Date: 8 Mar 97 21:33:47 GMT (Last modified)
From: Perl-Request@ruby.oce.orst.edu (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
Subject: Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 8 Mar 97)
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.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 1676
**************************************
