Re: bad nasty evil thread
On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, Robin Houston wrote: > On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 03:38:06PM +, Lucy McWilliam wrote: > > I'm tempted to do a lightning talk (good practise for my viva) but I don't > > actually do anything astonishing Perl-wise, it's just the biology/methods > > that are quite fun. > > Oh yeah, do it! I know a lot about Perl but very little about biology, > and I'd love to hear about it. Hmmmokay. L. Sex, flies and microarrays.
Re: bad nasty evil thread
* robin szemeti ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Friday 25 January 2002 11:12, Alex Page wrote: > > > > We could call Perl 6 "Perl Plus" and employ more Mongers as they become > > CFT-enabled due to their employers spending vast amounts of money on > > our conslutancy fees... > > wow .. thats a good idea ... > Although I still think it is theoretically a sound business idea, however implementation is likely to fail due to the stone soup / critical mass reasons. Greg -- Greg McCarroll http://217.34.97.146/~gem/
Re: bad nasty evil thread
On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 03:06:51AM -0600, Richard Clyne wrote: > Because some things work better on NT than on Unix. As long as > decisions are made based on the suitability of the platform for the > application, then I've got nothing against NT etc. Yep. We're running MimeSweeper on NT, forwarding to a Sun box as a pop3 server after filtering... if anyone can direct me to a better *nix only system that's as easy to configure with as good support that won't be troublesome to install and migrate to, I'd be interested but our own research hasn't found anything. Alex -- KCBpd lWmulvo ECS+ m5 CPEIV B13 Ou Lmb Sc+isIC+ T++ A6LAT H6oe b5 D+ - See http://bob.bob.bofh.org/~giolla/bobcode.html for decoding Website: http://www.cpio.org/~grimoire Writing: http://www.livejournal.com/~diffrentcolours
Re: bad nasty evil thread
On Fri, 25 Jan 2002, Newton, Philip wrote: > Chris Devers wrote: > > That or one of the surreal new hyperoperators > > So > > perl^=~ > > ? ;) So... ...that would be pronounced... ..."perl smokes crack"? ...? ;) -- Chris Devers "People with machines that think, will in times of crisis, make up stuff and attribute it to me" - "Nikla-nostra-debo"
Re: bad nasty evil thread
Chris Devers wrote: > That or one of the surreal new hyperoperators So perl^=~ ? ;) Cheers, Philip -- Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> All opinions are my own, not my employer's. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Re: bad nasty evil thread
On Fri, 25 Jan 2002, Simon Wilcox wrote: > Unfortunately *all* the certifications are backed by vendors with vested > interests. I know of no independent certifications that carry any weight > at all. Well that's the split, isn't it? If you want to get trained, you can either go for a vendor-backed, technology specific certification program (which, of course, comes with an expiration date), or you can go for a [theoretically] vendor-neutral, technology agnostic degree program (which has no expiration). Unless you can get a university to certify a program such as a Perl master's degree (I don't see that happening, and I think that's for the best (just as art departments aren't offering Photoshop degrees, and engineering departments aren't offering AutoCAD degrees, etc)), then it looks like some company or other organization is going to have to back whatever certification program you can come up with. > Perl cannot compete with that (we don't have the resources) and so I > suspect we will never have a perl certification programme that is > effective. Look on the bright side though -- how effective is MCSE? ...depends on your point of view, I guess... -- Chris Devers "People with machines that think, will in times of crisis, make up stuff and attribute it to me" - "Nikla-nostra-debo"
Re: Advocacy thoughts - was Re: bad nasty evil thread
On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 04:00:41PM +, Jonathan Peterson wrote: > Not always, but it depends how hard you try... Yep... as anyone who's seen me on IRC over the last few days will testify, I'm struggling to get Debian working on my laptop. Not (just) out of some innate desire to rid myself of Windows, but because all the *nix administration experience at my company is on servers... I can whip up a BSD server install in a couple of hours but I've never tried to get X working. We've found the right motivations in our company - mostly financial. We're already deploying StarOffice on some of our Windows desktops to avoid the cost of more MS licenses. We've explained the advantages in having proper networked storage, hotdesking (through LDAP and remote-mounting /home), a simpler backup policy, easier remote administration, stuff like that... and they like the idea. Especially, they like the lack of licensing. We've demonstrated that people can do all they need to do, with open source software. Management are clueful enough to realise that people *will* bitch but get used to it - the plan is for IT to train one person in each department on the basics of using a Linux desktop and StarOffice and use them as first-line support. Get the users to teach the users, and they'll be more likely to grok it.. and with no root, they can't kill things too badly. In other areas, I've replaced propriaty FileMaker Pro databases with Postgres databases, interfaced with a web browser, using perl and TT. I've saved a fortune in licensing in a few months, and improved the system to boot. Most of my admin scripts are in perl, just because it's what I know... and they're nicely documented with comments and POD, which means I can create my IT procedures manual (now stored under CVS along with all my other content, a new introduction to my company) automagically. It does depend on the company, and the angle you find. In my case, it wasn't "We must be doing it this way" but "Windows works, here's an alternative that will save us time and money, why don't we give it a go?" If the end-user trial of Debian desktops doesn't go well, we'll stick with Windows, which is why I'm putting so much effort into learning Debian admin - we need everything to work perfectly, first time, so our users don't get that bad experience thing. Alex -- KCBpd lWmulvo ECS+ m5 CPEIV B13 Ou Lmb Sc+isIC+ T++ A6LAT H6oe b5 D+ - See http://bob.bob.bofh.org/~giolla/bobcode.html for decoding Website: http://www.cpio.org/~grimoire Writing: http://www.livejournal.com/~diffrentcolours
Re: bad nasty evil thread
On Fri, 25 Jan 2002, Roger Burton West wrote: > On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 10:25:21AM +, Redvers Davies wrote: > >> And we're back round the advocacy loop again. How do we get commodity > >> certified Linux people out there? And I'm not talking about any great > >Perhaps a more important question is - do we really want Linux and UNIX > >admins to be commodity items? Think rates... > > There are already lots of people who think they're UNIX admins from > having installed RedHat once. The damage to rates has already been done. > One possible good effect of a certification programme - but only if > standards are kept high - would be to decrease the numbers. > > I've known quite a few MCSEs. There doesn't appear to be any > correlation between MCSE status and actual skill, except for the people > who got them when it was still new and difficult. A better analogy would probably be Cisco's CCNE programme. Now that is *hard* and the people who pass it earn $lots. So much so that Cisco had to implement a lower level of certification as the cost of getting CCNE was just too high. So now you have CCNA which is not very difficult to get (about equivakent to MCSE) and and designer certification which is not quite as hard as the CCNE. Unfortunately *all* the certifications are backed by vendors with vested interests. I know of no independent certifications that carry any weight at all. Perl cannot compete with that (we don't have the resources) and so I suspect we will never have a perl certification programme that is effective. Simon. -- "I demand to have some booze"
Re: bad nasty evil thread
On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 01:17:33PM -0500, Mike Jarvis wrote: > How does that beat mod_perl at anything? How do people get away with > charging so much for it? Can we convince people that a perl based app > server is a sexy? Can we sucker them out of hundreds of thousands of > pounds in licenses/consulting? Maybe this is the new direction for london.pm - setting up a company run by whoever happens to be in the CFT club at the moment, buying suits and PDAs and marketing perl application servers at the Java market... We could call Perl 6 "Perl Plus" and employ more Mongers as they become CFT-enabled due to their employers spending vast amounts of money on our conslutancy fees... Alex -- KCBpd lWmulvo ECS+ m5 CPEIV B13 Ou Lmb Sc+isIC+ T++ A6LAT H6oe b5 D+ - See http://bob.bob.bofh.org/~giolla/bobcode.html for decoding Website: http://www.cpio.org/~grimoire Writing: http://www.livejournal.com/~diffrentcolours
Re: bad nasty evil thread
On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 10:25:21AM +, Redvers Davies wrote: >> And we're back round the advocacy loop again. How do we get commodity >> certified Linux people out there? And I'm not talking about any great >Perhaps a more important question is - do we really want Linux and UNIX >admins to be commodity items? Think rates... There are already lots of people who think they're UNIX admins from having installed RedHat once. The damage to rates has already been done. One possible good effect of a certification programme - but only if standards are kept high - would be to decrease the numbers. I've known quite a few MCSEs. There doesn't appear to be any correlation between MCSE status and actual skill, except for the people who got them when it was still new and difficult. Roger -- He's a lounge-singing crooked sorceror with a mysterious suitcase handcuffed to his arm. She's a mentally unstable green-skinned museum curator living homeless in New York's sewers. They fight crime!
Re: bad nasty evil thread
> And we're back round the advocacy loop again. How do we get commodity > certified Linux people out there? And I'm not talking about any great Perhaps a more important question is - do we really want Linux and UNIX admins to be commodity items? Think rates...
Re: bad nasty evil thread
On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 09:07:03AM +, Dave Hodgkinson wrote: >And we're back round the advocacy loop again. How do we get commodity >certified Linux people out there? And I'm not talking about any great >in-depth knowledge either, but good enough to use webmin or some >other evilness to get Samba, Mail and printing set up on a Windows >LAN. Have a big evil organisation that hands out the only recognised certifications. Whether this is a good thing is left as an exercise for the advocates. -- He's an old-fashioned flyboy vagrant on the run. She's a tortured kleptomaniac barmaid with an incredible destiny. They fight crime!
Re: bad nasty evil thread
Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Um... no he hasn't. Linux isn't just the cost of the software you > know, it's the cost of the knowledge required to use it effectively. > After all, MSCEs are commodity parts in any organization. Linux > administrators are not. That is a *big* difference right there. And we're back round the advocacy loop again. How do we get commodity certified Linux people out there? And I'm not talking about any great in-depth knowledge either, but good enough to use webmin or some other evilness to get Samba, Mail and printing set up on a Windows LAN. -- Dave Hodgkinson, Wizard for Hire http://www.davehodgkinson.com Editor-in-chief, The Highway Star http://www.deep-purple.com Interim Technical Director, Web Architecture Consultant for hire
Re: bad nasty evil thread
Roger Burton West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 03:32:11PM +, Mark Fowler wrote: >>I buy Heinz tomatoe ketchup because I know it and it's low risk - the >>ketchup is *good* *enough* and I've only got one bottle of ketchup. I >>don't want to be stuck at home with some (possible nice, but unknown) >>ketchup to discover that it tastes terrible and have nothing to put on my >>chips. > > ...but this guy's _already bought and paid for_ the unknown ketchup; and > rather than taste it, he throws it away and buys Heinz. Not quite the > same decision. Um... no he hasn't. Linux isn't just the cost of the software you know, it's the cost of the knowledge required to use it effectively. After all, MSCEs are commodity parts in any organization. Linux administrators are not. That is a *big* difference right there. -- Piers "It is a truth universally acknowledged that a language in possession of a rich syntax must be in need of a rewrite." -- Jane Austen?
Re: bad nasty evil thread
Roger Burton West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 11:32:45PM +, Piers Cawley wrote: >>Roger Burton West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> And I spent Monday setting up a Linux fileswerver which is now going to >>> be abandoned. Why? Because the person running it decided that something >>> that didn't say "Microsoft" on it was too scary, and he was "safe" with >>> Windows. People who have real experience don't make decisions like >>> that; it's the idiots we have to worry about. >>Please, these people are *not* idiots. > > Anyone who chooses a fileserver which won't work reliably over one that > will - when the one that will has already been paid for, and the one > that won't will cost the company about L2,000 extra - simply because the > unreliable one has a pretty login screen _is_ an idiot. I'm sorry; > there's no way round that. With the best will in the world Roger. YOU ARE MISSING THE FUCKING POINT. -- Piers "It is a truth universally acknowledged that a language in possession of a rich syntax must be in need of a rewrite." -- Jane Austen?
Re: bad nasty evil thread
On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, Mark Fowler wrote: > On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, Dave Cross wrote: > > > I really think you're wrong about that Merijn. Sure, MSDW are doing really > > cool things with Perl, and we can all name other companies that we've worked > > for where interesting Perl work is going on. But I really don't think it's > > everywhere. Look at the computer press. Do you see anyone talking about Perl > > there? > > Just out of interest, where can I get press announcements for perl? You > know the kind of thing... > > Foo said on the releasing of perl X.XX.XX. "I think we can all agree that > perl X.XX.XX-1 was a tremendous success that has generated lots of interest > both in the technical arena and up in the boardroom. People are really > keen to see what can be done with this new technology. > > > If I'm a lazy journalist (tm) then I can make an entire story out of that. > I think that you got the job baby :) /J\
Re: bad nasty evil thread
On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, David Cantrell wrote: > On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Piers Cawley wrote: > > Please, these people are *not* idiots. And if we persist in calling > > them that and treating them as if they *are* idiots then we are going > > to continue to be perceived as scary people that no sane person should > > go near. > > I'm *proud* to be a scary person that no sane person should go near. > Er, whassat make us then ? /J\
Re: bad nasty evil thread
On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 09:55:11AM +, Simon Wilcox wrote: > > At one level I agree and look forward to the day when I can easily work in > a language I feel most comfortable with. At another level it scares me to > death. Amen! > In anything less than the largest software houses, a standard language > will be chosen and used because it will reduce the maintenance costs. Working in a small s/ware house, I could choose the tool for the job ... and we ended up shipping Perl with the COBOL app. In larger organisations that I've seen they're *more* likely to standardise because of arbitrary rules handed down. > There is nothing more likely to derail a project than coming across code > that needs to be changed for which you don't have the available skills. Seems to me, more likely in larger shops: is smaller places, people know what's going on. > Unless perl is accepted as a language of choice by *management* it will > not be pre-eminent in this space. It will always find a place in the JFDI > toolbag but it will not be the number one choice at a senior level. Agreed, but not specifically about your message, I see a people wanting 'a Perl job' and not seeing 'a job where I can use Perl'. In the end, I'd prefer the later because I can play to Perl's strengths, but not be forced to use it when there are better alternatives (not that I can think of any ATM). -- Chris Benson
Re: Advocacy thoughts - was Re: bad nasty evil thread
On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 04:00:41PM +, Jonathan Peterson wrote: > serving platform*. And Penderel is hardly a testament to the reliability > of Linux machines. I think Penderel is suffering from a bad case of old-shabby-hardwaritis. Paul
Re: Advocacy thoughts - was Re: bad nasty evil thread
David Cantrell wrote: > > Does he have a friend > > who had real trouble setting Samba up for some reason and now he's wary > > of it? > > If he values the advice of a random friend over the advice of the person > he pays good money to to know about these things, then he's an idiot. No, actually I disagree, and it's an important point. I didn't say it was a random friend. My friends are less random than my employees. I employ people based on the best of a bunch of C.V.s that I manage to get within a short time period, minus those ruled out by salary restrictions, minus those that don't want the position in the end, and filtered according to one or maybe two hour long interviews and if I'm lucky some examples of past work. My friends on the other hand may be people I've worked with closely for years, selected out of all the many people I've ever worked with. Or people whose opinions I've read on mailing lists for years. Like many of us I tend to change jobs every 1-2 years, so I'd never know my employees longer than that, while I've known some of my technically minded friends for 5 years or more. I have two employees who work for me. They are both good(ish) Java programmers but have limited knowledge of other areas of computing. One of them tells me he wants to use some commercial bug tracking tool that he used in his last job. It's expensive and proprietary (PVCS tracker) but he really wants it. My friends tell me they've got by fine with cheap and chearful bits of web based freeware, or maybe bugzilla when things get hairy. I overule him and tell him we'll use some PHP based thing I installed in my lunch break (called Mantis, it's on sourceforge somewhere). Why should I do this? He's the developer who has to use it, right? I should just give him what he recommends, after all he says it's good and I've never even used it. Well, my job as manager is not to do whatever my programmers say. I have to think about budget, I have awareness of our future staffing requirements, which make the license fee look a lot worse down the line. In fact, I had a political aim too - I recognised this employee was rather over fond of commercial software, and I wanted to show him that sometimes free stuff can do the job - and it's much better to show than to tell. Plus, it wouldn't kill him to learn a bit of PHP, if nothing else so he can compare it to Java. Plus, if I'm wrong, it's not really a big deal to fix down the line, it's a good chance for me to try something out. In fact, I was also quite interested to see how he would react to being overuled by me. The point is, I did not evaluate this based purely on "What is the best (value for money) bug tracker around". I had lots of other things on the agenda. And I had a lot of faith in friends who assured me that for my size projects you really don't need super duper feature rich wizzo bug tracking tools. Business people place a huge amount of store in the opinions of their friends and contacts. Unless they have a good relationship with their employees, they may place considerably less store in their opinions. If you want your boss to listen to you, be nice to him. Yes, that's politics, but it's a feature of human nature so we have to deal with it. > > I've met a lot of resistance to Perl based on 'bad past experiences'. We > > all know these were usually caused by bad programmers and stupid > > timescales. But your bad experience counts for a lot more than someone > > else's good experience, which is why the 'Perl success stories' are not > > alway so convincing. > > That's OK then. Soon *everyone* will have been burnt by Java and come > flocking back :-) Actually I think that's true. Already Java is becoming the new VB. Want a job in computing? Can't do anything? Read a book on Java and tell them you are a programmer. As the quantity Matt Wright style Java and JSP increases (and I've seen plenty already) it will lose much of its appeal. I think Java will soon become what C is now. Neither good nor bad, still widely used, but somehow a bit old and tired, OK for some big old J2EE project left over from 2002 but not really the best thing to be doing a new project in. > One person can change the world, but most of the time they shouldn't > -- Marge Simpson Everyone has better sigs than me. -- Jonathan Peterson Technical Manager, Unified Ltd, +44 (0)20 7383 6092 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Advocacy thoughts - was Re: bad nasty evil thread
On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 04:00:41PM +, Jonathan Peterson wrote: > > > Anyone who chooses a fileserver which won't work reliably over one that > > will - > > Neither of you can predict the future. I don't know the specifics of > this case, but Win2K (or even NT3SP3) is hardly an unreliable file > serving platform*. And Penderel is hardly a testament to the reliability > of Linux machines. Penderel is a testament to the unreliability of x86 machines. It is my experience, however, that on any particluar x86 box, Linux is more stable than Billware. With Linux you only have to worry about the shitty hardware. With Billware, you need to worry both about that and about the shitty OS. > I doubt the pretty login screen counts for much, although possibly some. > Seriously, what do you suppose this manager's reasons were for making > his/her decision? Was it a simple case that he sees Microsoft as a > predictable if unspectacular option versus Linux as a high risk option? If he sees it as a high-risk option, then he is at best ignorant. > Does he just think you recommended Linux only because you can't be > bothered to learn how to administer NT properly? If he thinks Roger is unprofessional then he should say so, and should fire him. That he didn't shows that he is an idiot if that is his reason for choosing NT. > Does he have a friend > who had real trouble setting Samba up for some reason and now he's wary > of it? If he values the advice of a random friend over the advice of the person he pays good money to to know about these things, then he's an idiot. >Was it that the decision over this file server was entirely > trivial as far as he was concerned, and he just couldn't care less what > gets used? If that is the case, then he's an idiot. > Occasionally you do get incompetant people. But usually, people have > good reasons for making decisions, even when they make the wrong > decision. This seems to boil down to a pointy-hair not paying attention to the people who he pays to know about these things. Not paying attention to your hired experts whilst continuing to pay for the service of those hired experts is idiocy. >Until you understand why people decide to choose technically > inferior products, it's hard to make your technically superior product > more popular with them. Agreed. But I see no non-technical reasons above which would justify choosing something which is technically inferior. > I've met a lot of resistance to Perl based on 'bad past experiences'. We > all know these were usually caused by bad programmers and stupid > timescales. But your bad experience counts for a lot more than someone > else's good experience, which is why the 'Perl success stories' are not > alway so convincing. That's OK then. Soon *everyone* will have been burnt by Java and come flocking back :-) > [stuff about negative campaigning being bad] all true. -- David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david One person can change the world, but most of the time they shouldn't -- Marge Simpson
RE: Advocacy thoughts - was Re: bad nasty evil thread
Since NT4SP3 is not even Y2K ready, I doubt that anyone would feel it is a fair comparison. I suppose you could compare it to Linux 2.0.*. My experience is that NT, Windows and Unix can be very stable platforms - they also can be unstable and I have seen it in all three systems. What about the bugs that are found in various kernel versions, my system at home can be crashed by USB printing until I moved to 2.4.10. Its a known bug but took about 4 months to fix. I'm not trying to single out one system over another, but they all have strengths and weaknesses. Richard > -Original Message- > From: Roger Burton West [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 24 January 2002 16:16 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Advocacy thoughts - was Re: bad nasty evil thread > > On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 04:00:41PM +, Jonathan Peterson wrote: > > >Neither of you can predict the future. I don't know the specifics of > >this case, but Win2K (or even NT3SP3) is hardly an unreliable file > >serving platform*. > > In my experience they both are (assuming you meant NT4SP3). > > >And Penderel is hardly a testament to the reliability > >of Linux machines. > > I don't know who set up Penderel. I do know that no Linux machine I've > set up has had downtime from anything other than hardware failure. > It's > my job to get these things right, and I do. > > I can't go into much more detail of this particular case, for obvious > reasons; suffice it to say that technical issues were not a factor. > > Roger > > -- > He's a suicidal guerilla barbarian whom everyone believes is mad. > She's > a virginal hypochondriac mercenary with an MBA from Harvard. They > fight > crime!
Re: Advocacy thoughts - was Re: bad nasty evil thread
On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 04:00:41PM +, Jonathan Peterson wrote: >Neither of you can predict the future. I don't know the specifics of >this case, but Win2K (or even NT3SP3) is hardly an unreliable file >serving platform*. In my experience they both are (assuming you meant NT4SP3). >And Penderel is hardly a testament to the reliability >of Linux machines. I don't know who set up Penderel. I do know that no Linux machine I've set up has had downtime from anything other than hardware failure. It's my job to get these things right, and I do. I can't go into much more detail of this particular case, for obvious reasons; suffice it to say that technical issues were not a factor. Roger -- He's a suicidal guerilla barbarian whom everyone believes is mad. She's a virginal hypochondriac mercenary with an MBA from Harvard. They fight crime!
RE: bad nasty evil thread
Chris Devers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote > I think the worst case scenario is that Perl could end up being like Cobol > is today -- old, ugly, and unloved, but a lot of working systems depend on > it years after they were written, so the need to maintain it (and to have > developers that understand it) will remain into the forseeable future, > until such time that these systems can be reimplemented in something newer > (which may not be worth the effort in the first place). Sad, but could happen. However the silver lining to that is that it becomes a rare "sought-after skill" and rates go through the roof. I think though that C is more of a model as its predecessor, in the mode of "you really can do anything in C, including abusing the language and O/S completely. It's possible but optional to write portable, human readable and supportable code in C". --- The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and solely for the intended addressee(s). Unauthorised reproduction, disclosure, modification, and/or distribution of this email may be unlawful. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your system. The views expressed in this message do not necessarily reflect those of LIFFE (Holdings) Plc or any of its subsidiary companies. ---
Re: bad nasty evil thread
On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 09:41:03AM -0600, Chris Devers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, Dave Cross wrote: > > > I worry that if we take the first option then Perl will be dead in five > > years. > > I worry that you keep saying that. Why? What is your concern, exactly? > > I think the worst case scenario is that Perl could end up being like Cobol > is today -- old, ugly, and unloved, but a lot of working systems depend on > it years after they were written, so the need to maintain it (and to have > developers that understand it) will remain into the forseeable future, > until such time that these systems can be reimplemented in something newer > (which may not be worth the effort in the first place). Yeah. That's exactly the scenario that I'm talking about. Perl as a latter-day COBOL. > If that counts as a dead language, then okay I agree with you -- it is a > danger (though in my mind not a huge one). But that doesn't sound *that* > bad to me. It's not like Perl is going to disappear completely, is it? I > don't think so. Ok, so not disappearing altogether, but if I want to continue using Pelr I don't want my only option to be maintaining old software. In my book that's "dead" to all intents and purposes. > I think Perl's blessing & curse is that it got so tightly bound to the web > and thus the dotcom hype, and now that dotcom has gone dotbomb, Perl may > be getting dragged down with it. Maybe. But Perl was useful before the web > came along, and it will of course remain useful if the web were to go > away. The problem is the perception that Perl is bound to the web, which > clearly isn't true, and needs to be changed. Oh, I agree with that. But not only is Perl perceived as being "that web language", it's perceived as being "that out of date web language". I think that Perl (and even more so - Perl 6) could be the enterprise level language of choice for so many different areas, but we've got a lot of work to do to persuade the mainstream that it isn't just badly-written, unmaintainable CGI scripts. Simply saying in a years time "hey look we've got a cool new version of Perl" isn't going to do it. Personally I blame Matt Wright. Dave... -- Drugs are just bad m'kay
Advocacy thoughts - was Re: bad nasty evil thread
> Anyone who chooses a fileserver which won't work reliably over one that > will - Neither of you can predict the future. I don't know the specifics of this case, but Win2K (or even NT3SP3) is hardly an unreliable file serving platform*. And Penderel is hardly a testament to the reliability of Linux machines. when the one that will has already been paid for, and the one > that won't will cost the company about L2,000 extra - simply because the > unreliable one has a pretty login screen _is_ an idiot. I'm sorry; I doubt the pretty login screen counts for much, although possibly some. Seriously, what do you suppose this manager's reasons were for making his/her decision? Was it a simple case that he sees Microsoft as a predictable if unspectacular option versus Linux as a high risk option? Does he just think you recommended Linux only because you can't be bothered to learn how to administer NT properly? Does he have a friend who had real trouble setting Samba up for some reason and now he's wary of it? Was it that the decision over this file server was entirely trivial as far as he was concerned, and he just couldn't care less what gets used? Occasionally you do get incompetant people. But usually, people have good reasons for making decisions, even when they make the wrong decision. Until you understand why people decide to choose technically inferior products, it's hard to make your technically superior product more popular with them. I've met a lot of resistance to Perl based on 'bad past experiences'. We all know these were usually caused by bad programmers and stupid timescales. But your bad experience counts for a lot more than someone else's good experience, which is why the 'Perl success stories' are not alway so convincing. In the past I've had surprising advocacy success using Perl for some very simple task, that any language would have been fine for. Just showing that a bit of Perl can be in your system without causing a meltdown can do a lot to re-assure management. Despite Microsoft's infamous FUD tactics, negative campaigning is not very effective. If people have actually had bad experiences with technology X, then convincing them to use something else is hardly a challenge. Not much point telling them what they already know. If on the other hand they have had good, or even just 'ok' experiences, then it's hard to convince them not to believe their own eyes. It's much easier to convince them that, sure technology X is pretty good, but not _as_ good as technology Y!!. Compare: Geek - "NT?? Don't use that, it's crap, it crashes all the time, you're stuck buying MS products forever, I mean every _technical_ person knows how much it sucks!" Manager - "Err, well that little file server seems to have been OK for the last two years. Sometimes on Monday morning it seems to go really slow - I just reboot it and it's fine, no big deal. I don't think we've had to buy lots of software we didn't expect to. I know the anti virus software doesn't come from Microsoft and it seems to work OK. I dunno, might as well stick with it". With: Geek - "NT?? That's not bad for simple file serving and stuff. But probably one of the things you've found is that you're constantly updating the data files for that anti virus package? That's kind of a pain to do all the time, and Linux doesn't really have a problem with viruses in the same way. Another thing you've probably noticed is how it can be a pain to move lots of files around at once, like when you want to move all the old purchase orders to that archive folder in the Finance share? Well, on Linux there are much better tools for that, kind of like those batch files you've got but really much more sophisticated. Those can help organise stuff alot, so you don't get cluttered up with old versions of files everywhere." Manager - "That's pretty interesting, but it's going to be a pain to move all the old stuff over, right?" Geek - "Yeah, a bit but not too much. The key thing is that the users can't tell the difference - both NT and Linux with Samba look the same to Windows desktops, so you won't have to retrain any-one - won't even have to get people to update their shortcuts or anything!" > there's no way round that. Not always, but it depends how hard you try... Jon * At this point someone comes up with a story about how they once had this NT machine that crashed every day blah blah and all it was doing was printing one word document a month blah blah blah and then they put Linux on it and it never crashed ever blah blah blah. Since these stories are not reflected by _any_ of my experiences in the matter, I'm unpursuaded by them. -- Jonathan Peterson Technical Manager, Unified Ltd, +44 (0)20 7383 6092 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: bad nasty evil thread
On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 03:38:06PM +, Lucy McWilliam wrote: > I'm tempted to do a lightning talk (good practise for my viva) but I don't > actually do anything astonishing Perl-wise, it's just the biology/methods > that are quite fun. Oh yeah, do it! I know a lot about Perl but very little about biology, and I'd love to hear about it. .robin.
Re: bad nasty evil thread
On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 03:32:11PM +, Mark Fowler wrote: >I buy Heinz tomatoe ketchup because I know it and it's low risk - the >ketchup is *good* *enough* and I've only got one bottle of ketchup. I >don't want to be stuck at home with some (possible nice, but unknown) >ketchup to discover that it tastes terrible and have nothing to put on my >chips. ...but this guy's _already bought and paid for_ the unknown ketchup; and rather than taste it, he throws it away and buys Heinz. Not quite the same decision. Roger
Re: bad nasty evil thread
On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, Dave Cross wrote: > I worry that if we take the first option then Perl will be dead in five > years. I worry that you keep saying that. Why? What is your concern, exactly? I think the worst case scenario is that Perl could end up being like Cobol is today -- old, ugly, and unloved, but a lot of working systems depend on it years after they were written, so the need to maintain it (and to have developers that understand it) will remain into the forseeable future, until such time that these systems can be reimplemented in something newer (which may not be worth the effort in the first place). If that counts as a dead language, then okay I agree with you -- it is a danger (though in my mind not a huge one). But that doesn't sound *that* bad to me. It's not like Perl is going to disappear completely, is it? I don't think so. I think Perl's blessing & curse is that it got so tightly bound to the web and thus the dotcom hype, and now that dotcom has gone dotbomb, Perl may be getting dragged down with it. Maybe. But Perl was useful before the web came along, and it will of course remain useful if the web were to go away. The problem is the perception that Perl is bound to the web, which clearly isn't true, and needs to be changed. -- Chris Devers "People with machines that think, will in times of crisis, make up stuff and attribute it to me" - "Nikla-nostra-debo"
Re: bad nasty evil thread
On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, Chris Devers wrote: > On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, Simon Wilcox wrote: > > > On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Chris Carline wrote: > > > > In anything less than the largest software houses, a standard language > > will be chosen and used because it will reduce the maintenance costs. > > I'm not sure if this is universally true or not. It's not of course ! What I should probably have said is that in most corporates, where they're doing development, they will only have a small team. They will tend to standardise on one language as it cheaper to recruit for and presents a standard code base. In very large dev teams and bespoke software houses, then there is a good possibility of dedicated teams such as those you mention. On the flip side, as a buyer of software systems a corporate has to weigh up home much it will cost them to maintain their software assets. I suspect that many will opt to standardise. From my own experience I know that I have been asked to build websites using NT/asp/M$SQL because "that's what we've got the skills to support" even though it was far more costly for them in development and purchase of additional software. Then again, I've also been asked specifically to use perl because of exactly the same reason and that's my point. Unless we can get perl to be the language of choice then people are more likely to standardise on something else. > > Java is winning because management believe it is cheaper. Of course they > > are wrong but how do you convince them of it? Where are the case studies? > > http://perl.oreilly.com/news/success_stories.html > > ? Oh yes. Not updated since August last year. Hardly a ringing endorsement unfortunately. Although the case studies are quite good. Simon. -- "I demand to have some booze"
Re: bad nasty evil thread
On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, Greg McCarroll wrote: > * Lucy McWilliam ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > Meanwhile, Perl is earning a good name for itself in the scientific > > community. Then again, this might just be saying summat about scientists > > ;-) > > And remember this years YAPC::Europe is "Perl and Science" I'm tempted to do a lightning talk (good practise for my viva) but I don't actually do anything astonishing Perl-wise, it's just the biology/methods that are quite fun. L.
Re: bad nasty evil thread
On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, Roger Burton West wrote:
> Anyone who chooses a fileserver which won't work reliably over one that
> will - when the one that will has already been paid for, and the one
> that won't will cost the company about L2,000 extra - simply because the
> unreliable one has a pretty login screen _is_ an idiot. I'm sorry;
> there's no way round that.
You can only act on the information available to you at any given time.
Most people buying Microsoft servers are taking the sensible option. They
have taken all the information that is present to them and assessed it,
and determined that the Microsoft server is the safer option of the two as
they have much reports saying that it is a highly reliable system. It is
a known system.
They are not idiots. They are people reacting to the information they
have at hand.
My (hypothetical) friend make tomato ketchup. It's ultra-healthy, cheaper
than other ketchups on the market and contains all natural ingredients.
None of this matters.
I buy Heinz tomatoe ketchup because I know it and it's low risk - the
ketchup is *good* *enough* and I've only got one bottle of ketchup. I
don't want to be stuck at home with some (possible nice, but unknown)
ketchup to discover that it tastes terrible and have nothing to put on my
chips.
Later.
Mark.
--
s'' Mark Fowler London.pm Bath.pm
http://www.twoshortplanks.com/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
';use Term'Cap;$t=Tgetent Term'Cap{};print$t->Tputs(cl);for$w(split/ +/
){for(0..30){$|=print$t->Tgoto(cm,$_,$y)." $w";select$k,$k,$k,.03}$y+=2}
Re: bad nasty evil thread
On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 03:06:28PM +, Roger Burton West ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 11:26:11AM +, Dave Cross wrote: > >But I really don't think it's > >everywhere. Look at the computer press. Do you see anyone talking about Perl > >there? > > Look at the computer press. Do you see anyone talking about stuff they > haven't been paid to talk about there? Even in my peripheral position > (freelance articles) I was aware of pressure to say good things about > specific companies' products. It doesn't matter what the reason is (and I strongly suspect that you're right). The fact is that unless you're talked about in the press, the perception is that you don't exist. Either we can accept role for Perl (and Perl 6) and get on with doing cool stuff in our incredibly small world, _or_ we can do something about it and try to get Perl noticed. I worry that if we take the first option then Perl will be dead in five years. Dave... -- Don't dream it... be it
Re: bad nasty evil thread
On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, Dave Cross wrote:
> I really think you're wrong about that Merijn. Sure, MSDW are doing really
> cool things with Perl, and we can all name other companies that we've worked
> for where interesting Perl work is going on. But I really don't think it's
> everywhere. Look at the computer press. Do you see anyone talking about Perl
> there?
Just out of interest, where can I get press announcements for perl? You
know the kind of thing...
Foo said on the releasing of perl X.XX.XX. "I think we can all agree that
perl X.XX.XX-1 was a tremendous success that has generated lots of interest
both in the technical arena and up in the boardroom. People are really
keen to see what can be done with this new technology.
With the latest release of perl X.XX.XX we've really concentrated in
delivering the people all the new top features that they've been asking
for. A lot work has gone into this release and we're confident that this
new update will have strong take up in the community when they realise how
empowering the new facilities in this release are."
Foo further joked, "I'm sure that most companies will want to update their
software to take advantage of the new power that comes with perl X.XX.XX -
before their competitors do"
If I'm a lazy journalist (tm) then I can make an entire story out of that.
Later.
Mark.
--
s'' Mark Fowler London.pm Bath.pm
http://www.twoshortplanks.com/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
';use Term'Cap;$t=Tgetent Term'Cap{};print$t->Tputs(cl);for$w(split/ +/
){for(0..30){$|=print$t->Tgoto(cm,$_,$y)." $w";select$k,$k,$k,.03}$y+=2}
Re: bad nasty evil thread
* Lucy McWilliam ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, Dave Cross wrote: > > > The vast majority of companies don't use Perl at all. And until we do > > something about advocacy for Perl 6, that situation won't change. > > Meanwhile, Perl is earning a good name for itself in the scientific > community. Then again, this might just be saying summat about scientists > ;-) > And remember this years YAPC::Europe is "Perl and Science" -- Greg McCarroll http://217.34.97.146/~gem/
Re: bad nasty evil thread
On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 11:26:11AM +, Dave Cross wrote: >But I really don't think it's >everywhere. Look at the computer press. Do you see anyone talking about Perl >there? Look at the computer press. Do you see anyone talking about stuff they haven't been paid to talk about there? Even in my peripheral position (freelance articles) I was aware of pressure to say good things about specific companies' products. Roger -- He's an underprivileged hunchbacked Green Beret who knows the secret of the alien invasion. She's a brilliant gold-digging fairy princess with an evil twin sister. They fight crime!
Re: bad nasty evil thread
On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, Simon Wilcox wrote: > On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Chris Carline wrote: > > In anything less than the largest software houses, a standard language > will be chosen and used because it will reduce the maintenance costs. I'm not sure if this is universally true or not. In the job I'm freelancing at now, they're willing to use whatever language does the task best -- which so far means a heterogeneous mix of Java, Python, Tcsh, and DOS scripts, and they're not ruling out others. The idea is to find and use the right tool for each job. At the job I was at previously, half the people were doing Perl, half were doing Java, and if it counts they had a guy using Matlab for whatever kinds of work it can provide (some sort of statistical analysis, I think). At the company before that I was doing all my work in Perl, but they had developers using Java, C++, and a graphical scripting language which I never got to take a look at. Of these companies, only one of them was bigger than 50 employees or so, and at the bigger one I was working within a semi-autonomous department of less than ten people (the IT department was all standardized, but we didn't deal with them at all really). This is all anecdotal of course, but the point is that I don't think you can say that the tendency to standardize on a language correlates to the size of the organization. Moreover, if a good framework exists for working on a variety of languages -- such as Parrot and CLR could both provide -- then I think this "right tool for the job" mentality will flourish in all sized organizations, big and small alike. > Java is winning because management believe it is cheaper. Of course they > are wrong but how do you convince them of it? Where are the case studies? http://perl.oreilly.com/news/success_stories.html ? > Unless perl is accepted as a language of choice by *management* it will > not be pre-eminent in this space. It will always find a place in the > JFDI toolbag but it will not be the number one choice at a senior level. I first came across the above URL in the form of a pamphlet in a technical bookstore. It would probably be a pretty good resource to have on hand to present to these 'educated stupid' management types as needed. -- Chris Devers "People with machines that think, will in times of crisis, make up stuff and attribute it to me" - "Nikla-nostra-debo"
Re: bad nasty evil thread
On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 11:32:45PM +, Piers Cawley wrote: >Roger Burton West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> And I spent Monday setting up a Linux fileswerver which is now going to >> be abandoned. Why? Because the person running it decided that something >> that didn't say "Microsoft" on it was too scary, and he was "safe" with >> Windows. People who have real experience don't make decisions like >> that; it's the idiots we have to worry about. >Please, these people are *not* idiots. Anyone who chooses a fileserver which won't work reliably over one that will - when the one that will has already been paid for, and the one that won't will cost the company about L2,000 extra - simply because the unreliable one has a pretty login screen _is_ an idiot. I'm sorry; there's no way round that. Roger
Re: bad nasty evil thread
On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Paul Makepeace wrote: > On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 12:08:45AM +, the hatter wrote: > > will point to perl6, and perl5 will have to be called as perl5. And I > > pick redhat merely because it's a hugely popular distrib, and they do tend > > to want to get the new/cool/geeky options in there quickly, so the other > > distribs will copy, > > I would hesitate to say other distributions "copy" as though Red Hat is > some standard bearer of quality or innovation necessarily... Oh I didn't mean that in any way to sound like RH is wonderous, grand, nice, or even desirable (what with slackware 8 safely on that tape in my bag) but I suspect that every other distrib that wants to be taken seriously would like to have an install base as large as RH. And regardless of oracles stance, I still see more pre-compiled commercial apps say they run on RH (or 'linux' but they mean RH) than all the others put together. And if it's in RH and getting used, then the other distribs really don't want to leave it out, unless they want to exclude part of their target audience. the hatter
Re: bad nasty evil thread
On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, Dave Cross wrote: > The vast majority of companies don't use Perl at all. And until we do > something about advocacy for Perl 6, that situation won't change. Meanwhile, Perl is earning a good name for itself in the scientific community. Then again, this might just be saying summat about scientists ;-) L. "I believe in justice, I believe in vengeance... I believe in killing the bastards."
Re: bad nasty evil thread
On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Greg McCarroll wrote: > so for humour sake, what would we call it? > >perl+++ No no, this is the language of the future, and a simple [or not so simple] increment operator won't do. We need exponentiation. perl** > the number of pluses choosen just for humour sake? ;-) The number of [symbols] should approach Pi :) That or one of the surreal new hyperoperators, to highlight the fact that Perl has things other languages don't and, err, that they look funny, and would probably scare away newbies & management okay maybe not such a great idea after all... :) -- Chris Devers "People with machines that think, will in times of crisis, make up stuff and attribute it to me" - "Nikla-nostra-debo"
Re: bad nasty evil thread
On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Piers Cawley wrote: > Please, these people are *not* idiots. And if we persist in calling > them that and treating them as if they *are* idiots then we are going > to continue to be perceived as scary people that no sane person should > go near. I'm *proud* to be a scary person that no sane person should go near. -- David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david This is a signature. There are many like it but this one is mine.
Re: bad nasty evil thread
On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 12:08:45AM +, the hatter wrote: > will point to perl6, and perl5 will have to be called as perl5. And I > pick redhat merely because it's a hugely popular distrib, and they do tend > to want to get the new/cool/geeky options in there quickly, so the other > distribs will copy, I would hesitate to say other distributions "copy" as though Red Hat is some standard bearer of quality or innovation necessarily... And not that Oracle is particularly any of those things either but let's face it, they dropped support for Red Hat in their latest release. Hmm, wonder why. Paul
Re: bad nasty evil thread
* at 23/01 19:25 + Mark Fowler said: > On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Struan Donald wrote: > > > * at 23/01 17:44 + Mark Fowler said: > > > > > > This name has to go. Perl 6 makes it sound like it's just another update > > > to perl. It's not. It's a new beginning. > > > > won't that just confuse people? alternately it's the sort of thing > > people see through pretty easliy too. i > > I'm not suggesting that we "hide" the fact that it's Perl. More the fact > that we brand it in such a way that it's clear it's not perl. You see the > difference? I agree there is a branding issue here but i'm just not sure that changing the name is the way to go. it's more about changing the perception of perl than anything. now i have no idea how to go about doing that but i feel that a name change won't make that much difference in the long term unless we make people realise that it's not the same perl. > The biggest opposition that perl 6 faces is for mind share. You're > thinking with your programming hat on. This is the issue: maybe i am thinking with my programming hat on but in some ways i think this is where we have to start. if we want to persuade people outwith the perl community to think of perl in a different way we have to start to persuade the community to project perl in a different way. i think it's fair to say that the perl community is perl's biggest asset but in some ways it's also perl's biggest drawback as we're not very good at thinking outside the community. we all assume that perl's benefits are so obvious that once people look they will magically be converted and it's not true. (and i know i'm over generalising here but as a whole community it seems like a trueism) > > "foo? what's that? oh, i see, it's just perl with a different name" > > This does not differ from 'Perl 6. It's just Perl with another digit.' > Some people will always think like that. But using a digit will not > convince them otherwise fair point. > > you have to convince them that perl 6 is a good thing because it is a > > good thing rather than with a flashy name. > > Yes! But I don't see the point in not making a big deal out of how much > it's changed. I think you're seriously ignoring the mind share issue. again, fair point. but why can't we make a big deal out of how much it's changed between perl 5 and perl 6? perl has mindshare. surely we should be trying to increase that and alter the perception of it rather that starting from scratch? > > plus i think there is > > possibly enough good feeling etc out there that it's worth hanging on > > to the name. > > This may be true. Maybe you want a sub-brand. Java has this with J2EE. > Now I'm not saying that we reopen the whole P5EE debate again, but *never* > underestimate the power of branding. shit no. take nike as the prime example of this. perl does need better branding. however that can start now. we all agree that perl 5 rocks and will be about for a while. if we start trying to make people realise that then when perl 6 arrives and rocks harder it'll be all the easier to persuade them to take it on. i guess that's my point. why wait for perl 6 to kickstart perl? if perl has an image problem then why not start trying to fix that now? the longer we wait the steeper the slope we have to climb is. s
Re: bad nasty evil thread
On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Struan Donald wrote: > * at 23/01 17:44 + Mark Fowler said: > > > > This name has to go. Perl 6 makes it sound like it's just another update > > to perl. It's not. It's a new beginning. > > won't that just confuse people? alternately it's the sort of thing > people see through pretty easliy too. i > > "foo? what's that? oh, i see, it's just perl with a different name" > > you have to convince them that perl 6 is a good thing because it is a > good thing rather than with a flashy name. plus i think there is > possibly enough good feeling etc out there that it's worth hanging on > to the name. > Before people get despondent, I met someone in a club in Oxford who told me perl was good though bad, and asked me if perl 6 would make it better. Given that otherwise unconnected people are hearing about what's happening, faffing with a name would spoil the effect entirely. Alex Gough
Re: bad nasty evil thread
On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Piers Cawley wrote: > Roger Burton West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > that; it's the idiots we have to worry about. > > Please, these people are *not* idiots. And if we persist in calling No, it will be the clever people that chose perl 6. Alex Gough
RE: bad nasty evil thread
Because some things work better on NT than on Unix. As long as decisions are made based on the suitability of the platform for the application, then I've got nothing against NT etc. Richard. NT and Unix SysAdmin > -Original Message- > From: Roger Burton West [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 23 January 2002 20:12 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: bad nasty evil thread > > On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 08:11:38PM +, Greg McCarroll wrote: > >So why do NT servers (or their win 2000 equivalents) exist at all? > > Because purchasing decisions are made by people who don't have to work > with the systems; > > Because those people still think that, by dealing with a single > established company, they have some recourse if things go wrong; > > Because those people want a pretty box, and a shiny certificate; > > Because those people have been trained to listen to salesmen rather > than > to techies; > > Because those people persist in judging the value of a thing by its > cost. > > Roger > > -- > He's an oversexed dishevelled cat burglar haunted by an iconic dead > American confidante. She's a plucky winged widow on her way to prison > for a murder she didn't commit. They fight crime!
Re: bad nasty evil thread
On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 09:04:15PM +, Chris Carline wrote: > The key here is that Microsoft are trying to create a language-independent > platform; whereas the alternative (Java) ties you to the one approach. That's not strictly true. Microsoft are try to create a language independant *Microsoft* platform; whereas the alterantive (Java) doesn't tie you to one operating system. MS want you to be able to use N different languages on your Microsoft box, but they most certainly *don't* want you to be able to run Visual Basic or C# on a Linux box, for example. C# and .NET is just another marketing smoke screen, just like COM et al before it. You can safely ignore both these technologies. Microsoft are going down, anyway. :-) If, on the other hand, Parrot fulfills its potential then it will truly be a cross-platform, cross-language solution. Much better. A
Re: bad nasty evil thread
On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Chris Carline wrote: > In fact, perl 6 may be a far more attractive proposition as a CLR language due > to its fresh implementation. > > If successful (and I wouldn't underestimate the chances of Microsoft here), it > would mean that programmer productivity would actually start to mean something > again. And I already know which language *I'm* most productive in. At one level I agree and look forward to the day when I can easily work in a language I feel most comfortable with. At another level it scares me to death. In anything less than the largest software houses, a standard language will be chosen and used because it will reduce the maintenance costs. There is nothing more likely to derail a project than coming across code that needs to be changed for which you don't have the available skills. As now, certain shops will specialise in certain languages, some will florish and others will die. In many respects building web-sites for human consumption is going the same way. Java is winning because management believe it is cheaper. Of course they are wrong but how do you convince them of it ? Where are the case studies ? Unless perl is accepted as a language of choice by *management* it will not be pre-eminent in this space. It will always find a place in the JFDI toolbag but it will not be the number one choice at a senior level. Simon. -- ENOSIG
Re: bad nasty evil thread
On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 08:17:10PM +, Greg McCarroll wrote: > so for humour sake, what would we call it? P# or PP (You said "pee-pee", snicker :-) A
Re: bad nasty evil thread
On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 12:33:44AM +, Rob Partington wrote: > The main > problem I have with Ruby for easynet[1] is that most of the things I do > need web frontends and I really need Template Toolkit for that. Hopefully > someone[2] will take pity on me and port it to Ruby RSN. Hi Rob, I'll be your [2]! It's on my TODO list. You'll be pleased to know it comes above "rewrite Emacs (and get it right this time)", "implement Xanadu" and "prove the Goldback Conjecture" but below "rewrite TT v3 (in Perl)" and "doing all the real work that I get paid for". I was trying to engineer the circumstances that would allow me to devote large chunks of real, working, paid-for time to further developing TT, porting it to Ruby and other things. Alas, I'm now more busy than ever with other work so it's on ice for the next few months at least. However, I do have the benefit of working with some world class Perl hackers on some very interesting stuff: http://openframe.fotango.com :-) A
Re: bad nasty evil thread
On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Piers Cawley wrote: > Please, these people are *not* idiots. And if we persist in calling > them that and treating them as if they *are* idiots then we are going > to continue to be perceived as scary people that no sane person should > go near. So you're trying to tell us that you're not a scary person that no sane person should go near, piers ? the hatter
Re: bad nasty evil thread
On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 09:12:41PM +0100, Merijn Broeren ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Quoting Dave Cross ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > Perl has a huge image problem. It's seen as the language that script kiddies > > use to write insecure CGI scripts. And it's difficult to argue with that > > perception because that's pretty much what the majority of Perl code is. I > > know it doesn't seem that way to us because we see a vibrant and exciting > > community will loads of interesting things going on. The rest of the world > > doesn't see that. > > > Naah, Perl is used all over the place for much more interesting stuff > then web programming. I'm always happy if people stop CGI scripting in > Perl and use a decent solution, be it websphere or mod_perl. Look at the > interview about archive.org, take a look behind the scenes at major > corps, Perl is used everywhere. Its the same discussion that was spun > here a while ago, high level is the key, and Perl+CPAN unlocks a great > potential. I'm much more concerned if DBI works for Perl6 then anything > else. (Ok, kerberos, ldap, net:: etc. as well). I really think you're wrong about that Merijn. Sure, MSDW are doing really cool things with Perl, and we can all name other companies that we've worked for where interesting Perl work is going on. But I really don't think it's everywhere. Look at the computer press. Do you see anyone talking about Perl there? The vast majority of companies don't use Perl at all. And until we do something about advocacy for Perl 6, that situation won't change. Dave... -- Don't dream it... be it
Re: bad nasty evil thread
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Roger Burton West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Because purchasing decisions are made by people who don't have to work > with the systems; Not always the case, though. At easynet, the final monetary say might be in the hands of the higher Gods, but purchasing decisions are made very much on the "shop floor". If you can justify it business-wise, you can have it. > Because those people still think that, by dealing with a single > established company, they have some recourse if things go wrong; It depends which company you're talking about, I suppose, but that's one of the reasons people buy the Suns and Compaqs of the world, to have that kind of "It's 3am, it's all gone to arse, panic" backup. > Because those people persist in judging the value of a thing by its > cost. In these times, unfortunately, that can be the life or death of a company. -- rob partington % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://lynx.browser.org/
Re: bad nasty evil thread
In message , Chris Devers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Struan Donald wrote: > > > Regardless of what you might think of Java, C#, Ruby et al they are > > fairly new and hence in some people's eyes[1] better not to mention more > > buzzword friendly. > > Aren't Perl & Java pretty much the same age? Isn't C# just Java in > different clothing? And Ruby, well, there's a bit of hype in the Perl > community (usually coming across as similar to parental pride at an > offspring that is growing up into a fine, upstanding adult), but is > anyone actually using Ruby for anything serious at this point? Define "serious". Ruby currently stands, in an intermediary role, between the fine people that use UKOnline and "bad things" on the internet. It's also being infiltrated into other areas of the easynet[1] systems (but don't tell them, they fear change.) Seriously, though, the Ruby script replaced some C code and is a lot easier to maintain (even with my shonky coding), it's a lot more flexible, and the performance doesn't suck that much in comparison. The main problem I have with Ruby for easynet[1] is that most of the things I do need web frontends and I really need Template Toolkit for that. Hopefully someone[2] will take pity on me and port it to Ruby RSN. Then I'll start replacing the evil PHP and Perl we have lying around with Ruby. *cackle* [1] branding guidelines, "bold and with a lower-case 'e'" [2] I started, got bored, gave up. -- rob partington % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://lynx.browser.org/
RE: bad nasty evil thread
On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Scottow Adrian - adscot wrote: > What is rather more likely to happen is people start to use Perl 6 and find > out how cool it is and use this for new development instead of Perl 5. > Leading to a two perl platform situation. Hmmm I wonder how many people out > there still have to write and support Perl 4 stuff. I'd tend to agree with that side of things, and a lot of the perl in use doesn't do anythinng complicated that will get really messed up by perl 6. The way I see it is that 6 will start shipping with redhat, and the simple stuff will need minimal effort to convert, and soon enough /usr/bin/perl will point to perl6, and perl5 will have to be called as perl5. And I pick redhat merely because it's a hugely popular distrib, and they do tend to want to get the new/cool/geeky options in there quickly, so the other distribs will copy, the home users will install and that will also drive the ISP market to support it for their clients (though I do admit virtually zero knowledge of perls use in non-netcentric environments, I have a real difficulty understanding the mindset required for producing huge tracts of code that will run for 40 years, won't get any new hardware, and is designed to be expanded internally, rather than through interfacing to other processes[1]) Of course, any complex code currently in development or enhancement will have an amount of pressure to move it to perl 6 to take advantage of the 'real programming' features that it does better, and to help a little with futureproofing. That said, I was talking to someone the other day who was working on something that only runs on perl4, but I've not had that conversation prior to that for several years. the hatter [1] Actually, this is something I've been wondering a little about london.pm-ers, there have been a fair number of posts from people asking things that I would consider beginner-level internet-related stuff while showing that they understand programming a lot better. Are there many people on here who use perl for systems that don't end up on the far end of an HTTP request, or talking to a system that ends up talking to such an app ? I'd say that the vast majority of sysadmins and internet-related developers I know all use perl, so assumed that the converse was true. Is there a secret world that I haven't seen, obscured by the fact that it doesn't come with the skills to self-promote itself as much on the net by default ?
Re: bad nasty evil thread
Roger Burton West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 07:02:50PM +, Andy Wardley wrote: >>Because, as Roger put it, they have highly-paid liars telling the >>decision-making credulous fools how wonderful it is. > > And I spent Monday setting up a Linux fileswerver which is now going to > be abandoned. Why? Because the person running it decided that something > that didn't say "Microsoft" on it was too scary, and he was "safe" with > Windows. People who have real experience don't make decisions like > that; it's the idiots we have to worry about. Please, these people are *not* idiots. And if we persist in calling them that and treating them as if they *are* idiots then we are going to continue to be perceived as scary people that no sane person should go near. -- Piers "It is a truth universally acknowledged that a language in possession of a rich syntax must be in need of a rewrite." -- Jane Austen?
