On Mon, 15 Oct 2001, MJ Ray wrote: > I feel that I simply have to comment about perl being described as > "less esoteric than python". How do you decide that?
It is not a comment on programming style, but a comment on availability. I see more perl interpreters around than python. To install plucker on a shared BSD box, I had to install a private copy of python 2.0. perl has usually 'just worked' when I needed it. > I've seen some really disgusting perl, but only mildly distasteful python. Me too ! > > Scoop ... transcode ... view. > > My vote would be for "channel" or "scoop". > > Would we risk confusing the issues if we call them "scoops" instead of > "plucks"? Well, I have never really understood why all the work being put into the python 'scooper' was not instead applied to the excellent sitescooper project, which is dedicated to the task, and supports the plucker viewer, albeit via the plucker python transcoding tools. sitescooper http://sitescooper.org/ can do cookies, has solved the --staybelow/--onhost stuff ages ago, has its own list of scoopable sites, does DOC/iSilo/Plucker, slices, dices .. My views can be found here :- http://plucker.gnu-designs.com/list/1Q2001/0483.html The plucker project combines 3 totally separate things :- 1. Fetch content 2. Convert / pack data for viewer. 3. View. Item 3 is outstanding. Yip Yip - Hooray. Sitescooper, IMHO, does a good job of 1, and needs some plucker help for item 2 (for the plucker backend only). However, since I am not in the position to contribute code at the moment, though I have in the past, and the folks doing the plucker scooper are dedicated to their task, and improving it, and my views do not reflect those of the sitescooper project, I should just shut up.. Cheers, Andy!
