Starting perl script @ boot up
Hi all, I'm trying to start one perl script at system boot up time. I'm using HP UX 11 and I did standard procedure to start process at start up (http://strc.comet.ucar.edu/unix/textfiles/startboot.htm standard process). Here I'm able to run this perl script through command prompt but system is not able to start same processes while botting up. Do any one have pointers? If this question is not relevant to this mailing list, Please direct me to proper mailing list. Rajnikant Jachak | Software Engg | Persistent Systems Limited mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Cell: +91 9822204088 | Tel: +91 (20) 3023 2479 Persistent Systems - Innovations in software product design,development and delivery - http://www.persistentsys.com/ www.persistentsys.com DISCLAIMER == This e-mail may contain privileged and confidential information which is the property of Persistent Systems Ltd. It is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, retain, copy, print, distribute or use this message. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender and delete all copies of this message. Persistent Systems Ltd. does not accept any liability for virus infected mails.
Re: Starting perl script @ boot up
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 7:11 PM, Rajnikant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, I'm trying to start one perl script at system boot up time. I'm using HP UX 11 and I did standard procedure to start process at start up (http://strc.comet.ucar.edu/unix/textfiles/startboot.htm standard process). Here I'm able to run this perl script through command prompt but system is not able to start same processes while botting up. This is most likely a system issue, not the Perl problems. But there are some hp-unix hackers here, maybe they can help you. -- Jeff Peng - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Professional Squid supports in China http://www.ChinaSquid.com/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://learn.perl.org/
Re: starting perl
Ok I am using windows 98 se and the Perl is Perl5.8-win32-bin-0.7.exe I believe that this came from the www.perl.com site I think. I will have to check. - Original Message - From: Charles K. Clarkson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Charlie davis' [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 11:57 PM Subject: RE: starting perl Charlie davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please don't top-post Charles [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: : : Charlie davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: : : : : What I was going by is a line of code in a book called : : teacher yourself perl in 24 days. and all the book : : said was to type in that line of code : : c:\perl\bin\perl -w -e print \Hello, World!\n\; : : just like that into the command line. Is this wrong? : : No. This works fine when I use it in a DOS prompt : window. : : That is what I keep getting told. But for some reason it : will not work on my dos prompt. And what I entered before : was copied and pasted into this newsgroup that is working : for everyone else. I must have something wrong with the : server that I am trying to us. I don't know what else it : could be. : : When I installed the perl program it also installed the : Apache program The server shouldn't matter. Are you using some flavor of Windows? The example was for Windows. Apache is not installed in the ActiveState Perl for Windows install. I assume you are using some other installation or that you are not on Windows. Can you confirm your operating system and where your install came from? Also, where is the perl executable located? HTH, Charles K. Clarkson -- Mobile Homes Specialist 254 968-8328 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://learn.perl.org/ http://learn.perl.org/first-response
RE: starting perl
Charlie davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please stop top-posting. : From: Charles K. Clarkson [EMAIL PROTECTED] : : : The server shouldn't matter. Are you using some flavor : of Windows? The example was for Windows. : : Apache is not installed in the ActiveState Perl for : Windows install. I assume you are using some other : installation or that you are not on Windows. Can you : confirm your operating system and where your install came : from? Also, where is the perl executable located? : : : Ok I am using windows 98 se and the Perl is : Perl5.8-win32-bin-0.7.exe I believe that this came from the : www.perl.com site I think. I will have to check. Try the ActiveState Perl Install: http://www.activestate.com/Products/ActivePerl/more_information.plex HTH, Charles K. Clarkson -- Mobile Homes Specialist 254 968-8328 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://learn.perl.org/ http://learn.perl.org/first-response
Re: starting perl
Ok thanks!! I will try it. But I am not sure what I did other than try a server program called abyss that I forgot that I had. And now when I enter the one line code it seems to be working. So now I can continue on with the book that I am reading. - Original Message - From: Charles K. Clarkson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Charlie davis' [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 6:41 PM Subject: RE: starting perl Charlie davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please stop top-posting. : From: Charles K. Clarkson [EMAIL PROTECTED] : : : The server shouldn't matter. Are you using some flavor : of Windows? The example was for Windows. : : Apache is not installed in the ActiveState Perl for : Windows install. I assume you are using some other : installation or that you are not on Windows. Can you : confirm your operating system and where your install came : from? Also, where is the perl executable located? : : : Ok I am using windows 98 se and the Perl is : Perl5.8-win32-bin-0.7.exe I believe that this came from the : www.perl.com site I think. I will have to check. Try the ActiveState Perl Install: http://www.activestate.com/Products/ActivePerl/more_information.plex HTH, Charles K. Clarkson -- Mobile Homes Specialist 254 968-8328 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://learn.perl.org/ http://learn.perl.org/first-response
Re: starting perl
OK Thanks! Yes I did and the c:\perl\bin\ in the path. But correct me if I am wrong. What I was going by is a line of code in a book called teacher yourself perl in 24 days. and all the book said was to type in that line of code c:\perl\bin\perl -w -e print \Hello, World!\n\; just like that into the command line. Is this wrong? - Original Message - From: Ned Cunningham [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Charlie davis [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 11:38 AM Subject: RE: starting perl You have started a new thread? You should click reply all, and continue on with the same email in the future. I'm not sure if you are responding to whom? :-) Also, if one of the Guru's reads the second starting of the thread, he/she will not know what you are asking. The starting point of your DOS prompt does not matter. The reason it does not matter is because you have the directory for the executables in your path. That is of course if you indeed do have it in it, which was my original question to you? Once you create a Perl script and save it, then you will need to change directory to it to run your script. Did you type in path and verify that c:\perl\bin\ is in the path? Ned Cunningham POS Systems Development Monro Muffler Brake 200 Holleder Parkway Rochester, NY 14615 (585) 647-6400 ext. 310 [EMAIL PROTECTED] There are two ways of constructing a software design; one way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult. -Original Message- From: Charlie davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 12:25 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: starting perl Ok when I start the dos prompt I get this C:\WINDOWS\Desktop I take it that is not what it should be? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://learn.perl.org/ http://learn.perl.org/first-response
Re: starting perl
On Sun, 2 May 2004 at 15:00, Charlie davis opined: Cd:But when I type what it says in the book I am getting an error Cd:messagethat states that I have entered a bad command or filename what I Cd:am entering is c:\ perl -w -e print \ Hello, World!\n\; And then I Cd:get the error message. Cd: Cd:I must be doing something wrong but I can not figure out what it is. what is the error message? posting that always helps us help you. from a casual glance, i'd say the 1st escaping backslash should not have a space after it (you want to escape the double quote, not the space). -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://learn.perl.org/ http://learn.perl.org/first-response
Re: starting perl
from a casual glance, i'd say the 1st escaping backslash should not have a space after it (you want to escape the double quote, not the space). try this instead. a little easier to read, and less error prone. c:\ perl -w -e print qq( Hello, World!\n ); -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://learn.perl.org/ http://learn.perl.org/first-response
starting perl
From what I can remember I am running MSDOS version 6.0 (I thank) and the version of perl is perl 5.8 But when I type what it says in the book I am getting an error messagethat states that I have entered a bad command or filename what I am entering is c:\ perl -w -e print \ Hello, World!\n\; And then I get the error message. I must be doing something wrong but I can not figure out what it is.
Re: starting perl
You need to add perl to your %PATH% or give it an explicite path name such as c:\ \perl\bin\perl -w -e print \ Hello, World!\n\; JW Charlie davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From what I can remember I am running MSDOS version 6.0 (I thank) and the version of perl is perl 5.8 But when I type what it says in the book I am getting an error messagethat states that I have entered a bad command or filename what I am entering is c:\ perl -w -e print \ Hello, World!\n\; And then I get the error message. I must be doing something wrong but I can not figure out what it is. - Do you Yahoo!? Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
Re: Starting Perl
R == R Joseph Newton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: R I totally forgot, by the time I got to addressing .pm, that R extensions in any context could be other than Evil in Randal's R universe. See, I never ever said that. Odd how I would get misheard on this point. Extensions for *commands* typed by the *user* to indicate something that the user doesn't care about is evil. Other uses of extensions are perfectly fine. -- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/ Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training! -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Starting Perl
Randal L. Schwartz wrote: Rob == Rob Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Rob Perl programs conventionally go in *.pl files. No. Only on broken architectures that demand it (read: windows). Oh? Greetings! E:\d_drive\ocf\discuss\prototypeperl mailparse [Picture Tk-based interface coming up--working perfectly--here] Greetings! E:\d_drive\ocf\discuss\prototype Windows doesn't impose restrictions based on extensions. It simply offers shortcuts based on them. The use of extensions provides a visible, human-readable [excuse me while a change my fiename back--I don't like having to call Perl explicitly...] indication of the type of data the file contains. When we want the system to find the application to open a file, we use the convention provided by the system. The OP clearly specified that he was operating under Windows. Rob's advice was right on the mark, since the ActiveState installations do not rely on the old .pl extensions [Perl modules need no extension under Windows, since they are opened programatically. I have associated the Edit command with Programmers File Editor, though, for speedier right-click access]. Perl does use the extension system for identifying modules under Windows. It looks specifically for files with the .pm extension. I just checked. Without an extension, the compiler couldn't find the module. With the .pl extension, the compiler couldn't find the module. With the .pl extension, the comiler couldn't find the module. The OS is not imposing this limitation. The .pm extension has no magic for Windows, because neither the installer program nor I have imbued it with any beyond the Edit association. So what is the Perl issue here? Joseph -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Starting Perl
drieux wrote: Which Organizational Process The one here on Earth, specifically the one a beginner to Perl, and probably also to programming, faces in taking his first steps to learning the language. This was the subject of the original post, from a user who stated that he operated under Windows, using a system that self-installs quite transparently. Rob clarified some misinformation concerning filename associations and convention when developing in that environment. The most recent comment seems to be about the organizational process involved with keeping files sorted by category. It is a fairly straightforward issue. It seemed a very cogent point. Nothing in the origin of the thread concerns the fine detail of maintaining concurrency in an enterprise development environment. That is material for next term, or maybe next year, for the OP. Joseph -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Starting Perl
Randal L. Schwartz wrote: I don't mind it for source files, but having to type foo.pl to run the foo command strikes me as excessive user hostility. ..and so does double-clicking on the script icon? Joseph -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Starting Perl
Joseph wrote: I don't mind it for source files, but having to type foo.pl to run the foo command strikes me as excessive user hostility. ..and so does double-clicking on the script icon? Which, to be fair, doesn't allow any command-line parameters apart from those that you thought of yesterday. Windows uses a graphical interface with a nervous nod towards command-line interaction. It is largely sculpted by marketing considerations. Similarly, Unix uses a command-line interface with bolt-on graphics capability. Its course of life has been the result of user bigotry. It's up to individuals whether they choose to cross swords or shake hands. Rob -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Starting Perl
On Saturday, Nov 15, 2003, at 23:38 US/Pacific, R. Joseph Newton wrote:
[..]
The most recent comment seems to be about the organizational process
involved with keeping files sorted by category. It is a fairly
straightforward issue. It seemed a very cogent point. Nothing in
the origin of the thread concerns the fine detail of
maintaining concurrency in an enterprise development environment.
That is material for next term, or maybe next year, for the OP.
[..]
and your point?
When should persons new to coding and/or perl be introduced
to the ongoing problems that both professional and amatuer
coders are all going to have to deal with, namely the classic
conflict between
code design
code maintenance
It's not like I presume that in the best of all possible worlds
folks will waltz in and have the best of all possible organization
processes in play. If anything the problem as the OP and I have
chatted a bit back channel, is that no one is teaching them about
the Great Holy Wars about which were the top level directories
in the Unix Grand Struggle between the forces of SYSV v. BSD
let alone the compromises that became the POSIX approach.
So why not offer some ideas on why a person can replicate the
basic structure in their own home directory with
/bin
/lib
/include
/src
/tmp
/man
/doc
This provides them with a basic framework of thinking about
how to provide SOME structure to that process. It also helps
them prep up for the rest of the core work that they will
need to acquire along the way. Clearly if they want to
test their installer, they can target
$ENV{HOME}/bin
$ENV{HOME}/lib/perl
They will also be able to run their own code at the command
line, or by what ever means floats their boat, by making
sure that their PATH element has that $HOME/bin element,
most likely as the first... it of course will then be
able to use as folks like to note, the FindBin offset
and/or the standard 'use lib' tricks - and NOT require
that they bloat out their command line shell environment.
Since at some point in the process they ARE going to wind
up asking that Ugly Question
I have some [functions,globals,configInfo] that I want
to share between scripts
and then they are no longer in the happy land of merely
cobbling a few scripts here or there...
The ChomskyIte freaks tend to get into ideological struggles
about the technical minutia of syntax and semantics, and one
knows that the coding language one is working with has fully
arrived when it CAN have it's very own Obfuscatory ourLanguage
contest to establish the complete WhackoNeff that 'can' be
done in a language. Most folks forget that these started out
originally based upon the unpleasantries of 'spaghetti code'
that was unreadable, unfathomable, and PAINFULLY unmaintainable.
So the obligatory Obfuscatory ourLanguage contests, in
which I also include 'perl golf' are great for showing the
arcanea, as well as for demonstrating where THAT EDGE lies.
This allows one's fellow peers and associates to politely
recommend that one 'refactor that code' by simply suggesting
that it
a. could have won the Obfuscatory contest in year
b. should be nominated for this years contest.
and hence that there might be some 'best practice' that
was overlooked and should be reconsidered. If anything I
so enjoy watching the young bucks come up with, well,
interesting solutions to technical minutia. And the
stuff worth remembering stays and winds up in code. But
I fear my days of running off to the CodingJihaud between
this or that coding style, OS, whatEver have come and left.
Which leaves me with the dull and boring 'back and fill'
stuff to write about. Those bits of experience about why
a given set of 'habits' have become the 'best practice'.
Oh to be young again, and Dashing...
ciao
drieux
---
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Starting Perl
Rob Dixon wrote: Joseph wrote: I don't mind it for source files, but having to type foo.pl to run the foo command strikes me as excessive user hostility. ..and so does double-clicking on the script icon? Which, to be fair, doesn't allow any command-line parameters apart from those that you thought of yesterday. Windows uses a graphical interface with a nervous nod towards command-line interaction. It is largely sculpted by marketing considerations. I would definitely grant that limitation. I'm just not a big fan of command-line parameters, for the most part.. I'll admit, when I double-clicked the file I'd been working on to test my point, it was a rare event. I'm usually running from the prompt in order to get my debugging info. Bear in mind that that information is not significant to my user. I only get output to STDOUT when something is going wrong. Similarly, Unix uses a command-line interface with bolt-on graphics capability. Its course of life has been the result of user bigotry. H, maybe we won't speculate on whose It's up to individuals whether they choose to cross swords or shake hands. Rob Good point. Sometimes its just the weather that makes that choice. Here Randal and I are both under these thick, clammy grey skies, following a workweek filled with pleasant and sunny days. Bound to make one a bit grumpy, ya know. SAD is pretty much ubiquitous in Aura-gone. Joseph -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Starting Perl
R. Joseph Newton wrote: Randal L. Schwartz wrote: Rob Perl modules are in *.pm. Yes, this is enforced by Perl. ... Perl does use the extension system for identifying modules under Windows. It looks specifically for files with the .pm extension. I just checked. ... ... So what is the Perl issue here? Whoops, I forgot that Randal had covered this point. This still seems a bit strange, that a system that Perl itself uses to keep track of file types should be such an object of scorn when made available through an operating system. I totally forgot, by the time I got to addressing .pm, that extensions in any context could be other than Evil in Randal's universe. Joseph -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GUI v. CLI was Re: Starting Perl
On Sunday, Nov 16, 2003, at 13:19 US/Pacific, R. Joseph Newton wrote: Rob Dixon wrote: Joseph wrote: I don't mind it for source files, but having to type foo.pl to run the foo command strikes me as excessive user hostility. ..and so does double-clicking on the script icon? Which, to be fair, doesn't allow any command-line parameters apart from those that you thought of yesterday. Windows uses a graphical interface with a nervous nod towards command-line interaction. It is largely sculpted by marketing considerations. I would definitely grant that limitation. I'm just not a big fan of command-line parameters, for the most part.. I'll admit, when I double-clicked the file I'd been working on to test my point, it was a rare event. I'm usually running from the prompt in order to get my debugging info. Bear in mind that that information is not significant to my user. I only get output to STDOUT when something is going wrong. [..] before I jump into the 'sorta depends what you want' effort to point out gooder and badder solutions in the GUI v. CLI Jihaud, a brief refresher course on history. let's skip over the technical details that Windows noticed that Apple's GUI approach was a great way of solving many of the basic simple user interface types of problems. Since that way would take us back to Xerox PARC, and we might not want to get into the problems of Human Interfaces. At which point we would also need to deal with the slow up take that Microsoft went through in its awakening to the fact that not only was there an internet out there and that the web was not merely some set of Drug Addled behaviors comeing out of CERN and DOE So please, do try to remember that some of us here were around when the sysadds at microsoft.com had their little series of email oopsies about correctly configuring their sendmail daemons, et al... Or should we be impolite and chat about the MIT based 'x windows' - currently at X11R6(???) and still a fun solution for various types of cross platform GUI solutions. If anyone should get smacked around for ... uses a graphical interface with a nervous nod towards command-line interaction. It is largely sculpted by marketing considerations. then that would be Steve Jobs, who right up to the release of OS X was trying to convince folks that the 'terminal.app', their CLI tool, was not really something that they were sure was going to still be around in the production release. Mac's were suppose to be 'gui driven' simple 'point and click' tools for 'normal people'. But of course the Freaks who like unix will give up their CLI interfaces ONLY after you have ripped them from their Cold Dead Hands.. That most of the current generation of windows users may not remember the history, let us please not try to re-write it. That having been said, the problem of 'command line interfaces' is one I soo love. If I hate anything its the freaking 'swiss army blade' approach that some folks take to making the One True App with a Gagillion command line options. ( and yes, if you have not read the compiler options, please, do, those people are a leading cause of things like Make and Ant, because, well, no SANE PERSON wants to remember all of that smack and type any of it at the freaking command line... ). So yes, there are times I so love the simpler 'click this' approach to solving 'issues' on the day to day basis for my desktop system. But there are also many very useful and important places for 'back end systems' that will run a whole lot simpler and leaner without a GUI interface mechanism running to deal with them. The idea of 'headless servers' is still something that makes many 'intel boxes', irregardless of OS, twitch since they have this deep seated need to see the 'monitor, mouse and keyboard' to get through certain stages of their initialization sequence. So if one is happy in a headless environment, then telnet, ftp, yourFaveHere, can be your best friend. In those cases having simple short commands with a reasonable number of command line options is all one needs. Even IF one is going to be stacking some 'GUI monitoring tool' at some 'front end' to the process, to keep down one's labor costs - it is best to remember how to build those on top of simple basic code that becomes a bit more flexible, and hence maintainable, with an appropriate CLI interface. If one is never, ever, going to be working with servers, or back end issues, then of course it is paramount that one makes their tool set with the Human in mind. So when we make the assertion Its course of life has been the result of user bigotry. it could be because the servers in the back room are for doing things that do not need to have a lot of human interaction with mouse, monitor, keyboard I/O sub-systems, hence the folks who made their choice of OS's are driven by performance issues that can be less than 'human friendly' - since one only wants to send a human to deal with it on rare occasions, so
Re: Starting Perl
On Friday, Nov 14, 2003, at 08:06 US/Pacific, Randal L. Schwartz wrote: [..] Luckily, with the modern Learning Perl book, there's no need for a separate version. O'Reilly continues to sell it though, simply because it's selling. :) We've come a long way from that first series of books. [..] For the FNG's - read that part again. If you can get your hands on a 1990 edition of programming perl, you will SOO appreciate the literature that is out there! You will also find that 'perldoc' that comes with perl and the POD that is already available is way much better than it has been! ciao drieux --- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Starting Perl
Randal L. Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Chris == McMahon, Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Chris You *are* the one who wrote Learning Perl on Win32 Systems, yes? I wrote the Learning Perl parts yes. Eric Olsen (I'm probably mangling the spelling of his name) wrote the Win32 parts though. I didn't even know the book was coming out until it showed up on shelves. :-) Luckily, with the modern Learning Perl book, there's no need for a separate version. O'Reilly continues to sell it though, simply because it's selling. :) We've come a long way from that first series of books. So, by your comment, I can take it to mean that the book can now cover both *nix and Windows and that you have either told the Windows people to use .pl or .plx correct? I look at many books on learning Perl and I see naming conventions with either a *.pl or *.plx and so as a beginner this is what I do. If it isn't supposed to be that way it shouldn't come out in print that way. I personally like the fact that I can look at an extension and know what type of file it is (unless subterfuge is involved). Maybe when I ditch Windows for Linux (in the very near future) I will try it without the extension and see if I have withdrawals. : ) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Starting Perl
Bob == Bob X [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Bob So, by your comment, I can take it to mean that the book can now Bob cover both *nix and Windows and that you have either told the Bob Windows people to use .pl or .plx correct? Yes, I seem to recall that is what we did. We spent a lot of work making sure that Learning Perl, 3rd edition, was Windows compatible, although still being biased toward Unix. The intent was to make the Gecko obsolete. Bob I look at many books on learning Perl and I see naming Bob conventions with either a *.pl or *.plx and so as a beginner this Bob is what I do. Most Learn-Perl-in-$x-time books were written for Winders users, or the people writing them apparently weren't familiar with the Unix (and hence Perl) conventions. Bob If it isn't supposed to be that way it shouldn't Bob come out in print that way. I personally like the fact that I can Bob look at an extension and know what type of file it is (unless Bob subterfuge is involved). I don't mind it for source files, but having to type foo.pl to run the foo command strikes me as excessive user hostility. -- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/ Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training! -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Starting Perl
Chuk == Chuk Goodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Chuk Sort of both, but more of the former. Basically, if I've got a Chuk directory sitting there with three or four different types of Chuk files in it, I'd like to know which ones are perl (and I can Chuk just open them up in vi and fix them) and which ones aren't (and Chuk I'll have to find the source somewhere if I need to fix them). Chuk Right now I use .pl for that. Why do you need to know that before going in to the file? If the program frazzy is broken, you go to frazzy. Why do you want to know that's Perl already? And if you need to know, file frazzy will tell you precisely what it has. Extensions for programs convey redundant useless information, and serve only to distract. Please don't use them on Unix. -- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/ Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training! -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Starting Perl
Chris == Chris McMahon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Chris I name my Perl scripts on my FreeBSD box something.pl Chris because I'm the first (and so far only, but not for long) user Chris of a Unix-y system in an all-Windows shop, and I don't want my Chris colleagues to be confused. If they're using Windows, they're already hopelessly confused. :) -- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/ Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training! -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Starting Perl
OK, I just can't leave this one alone, I have to know... =) You *are* the one who wrote Learning Perl on Win32 Systems, yes? The more-or-less definitive guide to arguably the most powerful Windows scripting language around? Were you an entirely different person in 1997? Posessed by MS demons, maybe? Is there anything you need to confess? I sense some interesting Perl history here... Apologies in advance, and please read this message with the kindness that I wrote it (and also feel free to ignore it!)... -Chris -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 8:29 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Starting Perl Chris == Chris McMahon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Chris I name my Perl scripts on my FreeBSD box something.pl Chris because I'm the first (and so far only, but not for long) user Chris of a Unix-y system in an all-Windows shop, and I don't want my Chris colleagues to be confused. If they're using Windows, they're already hopelessly confused. :) -- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/ Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training! -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Starting Perl
Chris == McMahon, Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Chris You *are* the one who wrote Learning Perl on Win32 Systems, yes? I wrote the Learning Perl parts yes. Eric Olsen (I'm probably mangling the spelling of his name) wrote the Win32 parts though. I didn't even know the book was coming out until it showed up on shelves. :-) Luckily, with the modern Learning Perl book, there's no need for a separate version. O'Reilly continues to sell it though, simply because it's selling. :) We've come a long way from that first series of books. -- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/ Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training! -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Starting Perl
Randal L. Schwartz wrote: Rob == Rob Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Rob Perl programs conventionally go in *.pl files. No. Only on broken architectures that demand it (read: windows). On Unix, Perl programs have no extension, any more than cat has an extension. Why should the user care what the implementation language is? (sigh) Yomna el-Tawil wrote: Thank you all for ur answeres... But I've got some problems, i'd like to say first that i'm using activePerl , under windows. Randal L. Schwartz wrote: If you name your Perl program something.pl on a Unix machine, I shall continue to look at you quizzically until either you or I leave the room. :) Don't worry. I won't touch your Unix machine. (looking quizzically back) Rob Perl modules are in *.pm. Yes, this is enforced by Perl. Mm. Rob -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OS Choices (was Starting Perl)
Randal L. Schwartz wrote: If you name your Perl program something.pl on a Unix machine, I shall continue to look at you quizzically until either you or I leave the room. :) Rob Dixon wrote: Don't worry. I won't touch your Unix machine. (looking quizzically back) To pass on an anonymous quote I once saw: Unix _is_ a user-friendly system it's just very picky about who its friends are. Thanks for making me smile on a Friday afternoon. Chris. (Unix user) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Starting Perl
I name my Perl scripts on my FreeBSD box something.pl because I'm the first (and so far only, but not for long) user of a Unix-y system in an all-Windows shop, and I don't want my colleagues to be confused. Quizzicality cuts both ways... =) -Chris -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 8:55 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Starting Perl Rob == Rob Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Rob Perl programs conventionally go in *.pl files. No. Only on broken architectures that demand it (read: windows). On Unix, Perl programs have no extension, any more than cat has an extension. Why should the user care what the implementation language is? If you name your Perl program something.pl on a Unix machine, I shall continue to look at you quizzically until either you or I leave the room. :) Rob Perl modules are in *.pm. Yes, this is enforced by Perl. -- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/ Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training! -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Starting Perl
On Thursday, Nov 13, 2003, at 07:49 US/Pacific, McMahon, Chris wrote: [..] I name my Perl scripts on my FreeBSD box something.pl because I'm the first (and so far only, but not for long) user of a Unix-y system in an all-Windows shop, and I don't want my colleagues to be confused. Quizzicality cuts both ways... =) -Chris [..] You might want to be a bit more Culturally Sensitive to the 'old guys', since, well, technically TLA's ( Three Letter Acronymns ) should be Three Letters Long. Once upon a time, a long long time ago, *.pl was the official designatore for a 'perl library', then the Perl Module suffix *.pm came into being to help ease folks from 'require foo.pl;' across to 'use foo;' so technically *.pl was actually taken, and should not have been used, since it a. had history b. is not three letters long hence if you wish to migrate a TLA model you should adopt the Orthodoxy of *.plx for perl executable. Alternatively you might get freaky and notice that in the Unixy World, BSD or otherwise, that there is no need to put 'extensions' on executables, one merely flips the executable bit on the code, and in the dark leaves the execution to the executioner. Helping your professional peers transition into the realm of BSDisms is a laudable goal, but you might want to be a bit more up front with them about the actual options open to them. ciao drieux --- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Starting Perl
On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 07:55:24PM -0800, Randal L. Schwartz wrote: Rob Perl programs conventionally go in *.pl files. No. Only on broken architectures that demand it (read: windows). On Unix, Perl programs have no extension, any more than cat has an extension. Why should the user care what the implementation language is? If you name your Perl program something.pl on a Unix machine, I shall continue to look at you quizzically until either you or I leave the room. :) What kind of naming structure would you suggest for people who just want to use extensions for organizational purposes? -- chuk -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Starting Perl
On Thursday, Nov 13, 2003, at 09:32 US/Pacific, Chuk Goodin wrote: [..] What kind of naming structure would you suggest for people who just want to use extensions for organizational purposes? [..] when you say for 'organizational purposes' do you mean in terms of tracking the 'source code' in a source code control system? Or do you mean tracking named applications Allow me to illustrate my point, there is the compiled binary executable 'head' that happens to have no extension. But one of the small oopsies of installing the LWP onto a Mac OSX box was that the file system is 'case insensitive' so HEAD - the perl code stepped on 'head' the binary. So I had two choices, a. get the c-code source for 'head' and recompile b. whack in the perl code alternative for it Ok, so I also liked some of the SYSV arguments that can be used with 'head' the binary, that are not in the BSD variant, so I hacked the perl code to do what I wanted rather than the standard BSD release version. At which point we get to the core problem, how to manage the name space problem associated with wanting to use 'code' that will be found in the environmental variable PATH so that one does not have to type out the fully qualified path to the executable at the command line One solution is the /opt/myPackage/bin approach in which one will install all of their 'applications' inside of their own package name space on the file system under /opt per the POSIX standard. This is an approach that the Fink Folks like. Yes, if one wanted to have 'head.plx' as the lwp link to the lwp-request code that would check to see how it was called to set default options, then one would have to hack the actual lwp-request code to clean that up... And that gets us where in all of this??? So the real question is Which Organizational Process ciao drieux --- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Starting Perl
What kind of naming structure would you suggest for people who just want to use extensions for organizational purposes? when you say for 'organizational purposes' do you mean in terms of tracking the 'source code' in a source code control system? Or do you mean tracking named applications Sort of both, but more of the former. Basically, if I've got a directory sitting there with three or four different types of files in it, I'd like to know which ones are perl (and I can just open them up in vi and fix them) and which ones aren't (and I'll have to find the source somewhere if I need to fix them). Right now I use .pl for that. how to manage the name space problem associated with wanting to use 'code' that will be found in the environmental variable PATH so that one does not have to type out the fully qualified path to the executable at the command line One solution is the /opt/myPackage/bin approach in which one will install all of their 'applications' inside of their own package name space on the file system under /opt per the POSIX standard. This is an approach that the Fink Folks like. That seems pretty extreme for my needs. So the real question is Which Organizational Process Calling it a process is probably going too far. -- chuk -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Source Code Control and Naming ThingiePoo was Re: Starting Perl
On Thursday, Nov 13, 2003, at 10:34 US/Pacific, Chuk Goodin wrote: [..] Basically, if I've got a directory sitting there with three or four different types of files in it, I'd like to know which ones are perl (and I can just open them up in vi and fix them) and which ones aren't (and I'll have to find the source somewhere if I need to fix them). Right now I use .pl for that. [..] Calling it a process is probably going too far. [..] You will forgive me if I whine a bit here, first at the Unpleasant irony of 'organizational process' as, well, yes, good quip. So let us step back and look at the 'root cause problem' so I want to just 'fix it on the fly' and yes, foo.pl as an editable text file will allow you simply open it with a text editor and WHACK a fix in. Unlike RealCode[tm] that has to be 'compiled' and installed. But why not treat your 'perl code' like as if it were RealCode[tm]? The code that makes it out onto the 'production machines' should be treated with some respect, irregardless of the language used, eh no? So why not start an 'organizational process' that begins with the this is our source code control system this is our build and release mechanism this is our installation mechanism that type of process does not discriminate on the basis of origins of source code. It likewise does not really care much about the 'extensions' that may be 'fashionable', no? Likewise it will help 'repeatability' and 'recoverability' in the long run, since if you have your code under some form of source code control, you can keep track of what got modified by whom, and perchance why. You can also keep track of what is 'installed' - whether one is using the RPM information, or the Solaris Package Info, etc, etc, etc. There is nothing quite as ugly as finding out that the only copy of the foo code just got stomped on by an 'older version' because, well, it was simpler to 'edit on the fly' the foo code, because, well, it is just perl and it is editable, and it's not like it was you know c-code or a RealCoding[tm] language... If you back up your source tree, and cache it off site, then one has the 'golden master' from which all can be rebuilt to the current standard. In like manner, while at present you may not see the usefulness of the POSIX style approach of /opt, you may find that it will become useful for a variety of reasons that lead to the creation and adoption of the 'standard'. If you start this process early on, you CAN actually save yourself much grief in the long run. ESPECIALLY when you start noticing that there are common blocks of code in a bunch of *.pl files that could be shifted into a common Our::Foo::Stuff perl module, and of course at that point you want to be building it out with h2xs, so that you can make the simpler process of having a Makefile created from the Makefile.PL that will simplify installing the Perl Module in the canonical CPAN style location so that all of the 'executables' that are going to be delivered with it do not have to go gerryMeandering around wondering where the Module got installed and can all start out with that simple elegance of #!/usr/bin/perl -w use strict; use Our::Foo::Stuff; #-- # this code does. Today it is one or two scripts, tomorrow you are up to your yaba-Hoo-Hoo-Hoo trying to find all n-gagillion of them that all have the same common defect because everyone opted to just fix it on the fly, and they cut and pasted from one to the next, and there are cats and dogs living together But by going back to the 'source' you get to edit in one fix, crank the build and release handle that punks out one more installable, and you haul it around, just like as if it were RealCode[tm] and have some knowledge about what is installed where and that your life is so much simpler. ciao drieux --- ps: ok, if you name is Neo, going back to the Source may make you twitch, but it is the right thing to do, just get in touch with your inner, uh, correctness... -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Source Code Control and Naming ThingiePoo was Re: Starting Perl
On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 11:33:14AM -0800, drieux wrote: So let us step back and look at the 'root cause problem' so I want to just 'fix it on the fly' and yes, foo.pl as an editable text file will allow you simply open it with a text editor and WHACK a fix in. Unlike RealCode[tm] that has to be 'compiled' and installed. But why not treat your 'perl code' like as if it were RealCode[tm]? While that would indeed be the Best Practice, as a beginner just learning, one of the things I like about perl are the differences from other (usually compiled) languages that I'm used to. I think your answer to my original question could be summed up as don't do it that way. Which is of course valid. But by going back to the 'source' you get to edit in one fix, crank the build and release handle that punks out one more installable, and you haul it around, just like as if it were RealCode[tm] and have some knowledge about what is installed where and that your life is so much simpler. Thanks for spending the time to answer this, because that was a nicely readable and accurate description of some things that are definitely a good idea. -- chuk -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Source Code Control and Naming ThingiePoo was Re: Starting Perl
On Thursday, Nov 13, 2003, at 12:29 US/Pacific, Chuk Goodin wrote:
[..]
While that would indeed be the Best Practice, as a beginner just
learning,
one of the things I like about perl are the differences from other
(usually compiled) languages that I'm used to.
[..]
Chuk, et al,
a part of the reason that we all like perl is that
we can hack quick and get something done, down and dirty.
The PROBLEM is that we can hack quick and regret at leisure.
So it is precisely BECAUSE you are in the 'learning' phase
that it is best to 'keep your eye on the prize' and remember
that Just Because you CAN, is rarely a good enough excuse.
From my experience I actually do have all three of the
directories I have recommended
$ENV{HOME}/
src/ #
perl/ # illustrative code things
c/ # illustrative c89/c99 code things
java/ #illustrative java things
scripts/ # sh and awk stuff
tarballs/ # projects and stuff
projects/ # projects, both gigs and for fun
tmp/ # generic play space
as well as:
bin/ # my apps here
lib/ # my lib stuff - while I decide if it should be installed
perl/ # the root of the perl foo for moi
# so that I can test with
# use lib $ENV{HOME}/lib/perl;
docs/ # stuff that documents code stuff
man/ # where manpages go...
so that I can work on ideas that I find interesting that
are not related to any specific 'paying gig' and/or
'proprietary code' - but things that make my life easier.
In this personal approach, I don't actually 'source code control'
with SSCS|RCS|Perforce|yourWidgetWingDingHere but the simpler model
of either keeping the snippets in my home src directory, or,
in the case of interesting ideas, I did the 'make dist' and
saved off the foo_bar_baz.tar.Z and stuffed it away in the tarballs
for some other day to play with it.
When the contract/gig has a source code control system,
then I use that, and well, my 'home directory' in those
cases, look just like my home directory everywhere else.
So yes, there are 'perl scripts' and there are 'perl code'
and folks need to respect BOTH classes of madness for their
appropriate use. In my case I use the *.plx so that it is
'obvious' when ported over to places that need a TLA. But
I also have 'code' that has no extension because, well,
it is just code and it just runs.
As the saying goes, the person wanted to have an idea about
how to start, so I thought I would thump the bully pulpit
on the point of starting right so as not to start bad habits
that will need to be fixed.
We of course have not stepped into 'POD' yet, but of course
that too is IMPORTANT, since if you write your POD well,
I personally have opted for the foo.pod and foo.pm and
deliver both, then when I am using foo, I just cut and
past from the pod into the code... So I raise that as
a part of the process now. It is also fun to create the
POD for the applications as well, and you can 'manify' it
so that your 'old guy unix heads' can do
man WingDingDing
and get a 'unix style manpage' on what WingDingDing as
an application is suppose to do, just like every other
vol one application...
In my own case, I finally broke down, and to simplify my
life I hung illustrative code on my web-pages, so that
way I could send the URL, vice the code. I thought I was
being Polite until one day I needed a 'trick' that I could
not remember and found myself at google doing a search on
my site for the token. It was 'easier', it was embarrasing,
but it got cut and pasted into the code I was cutting and
worked as I wanted it.
At which point we have a nice working space in which to
go about dealing with the idioms of perl, the questions
of good form, and with any luck you will not be the
source of those postings
Need Perl Coder who can write good clean perl
based upon awkward and ungainly perl code
and that on going problem of folks who figure out that
there are all sorts of 'operation'|QA code that is out
there that no one really knows about that keeps the shop working
but now needs to be brought under source code control
and dealt with as RealCode[tm] that has actually become
'mission critical'.
As I warned one of my friends,
If you code it,
It will go into production.
He thought I was joking right up to the moment that
he got his first bug report on his code, and there
were engineers standing around wanting to actually
know how it actually worked
Start Right, Live Well,
laugh at the stuff you have to...
ciao
drieux
---
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Starting Perl
i'd like to say first that i'm using activePerl , under windows. for O'Reilly, i couldn't subscribe or even have the 14 days trial because i don't have a credit card.. :( I have a question, because really i couldn't help myself... You're probably either going to need to pick up a book on perl or read through the documentation and tutorials on perldoc.com. O'Reilly's Learning Perl is a great book for beginners. Programming Perl is even better -- but it assumes a lot of experience programming and doesn't waste time with anything. I don't know where to write the Perl code... it may sound weird, but it's true.. Perl code takes the form of a text file. If you're under windows you'll name your perl files with the .pm extension. If you're under unix you put the following line as the first line of your perl file: #! /usr/bin/perl Of course, perl may be somewhere else then /usr/bin. Check with your sysadmin. I've got something called : Perl Package manager, in activestate activeperl 5.6 That's something different. I don't know what to say but i need someone to tell me from where to start... You need a text editor. Check out GNU Emacs: http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/emacs.html -Dan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Starting Perl
Dan Anderson wrote: Perl code takes the form of a text file. If you're under windows you'll name your perl files with the .pm extension. Hi Dan. Perl programs conventionally go in *.pl files. Perl modules are in *.pm. Rob -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Starting Perl
Rob == Rob Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Rob Perl programs conventionally go in *.pl files. No. Only on broken architectures that demand it (read: windows). On Unix, Perl programs have no extension, any more than cat has an extension. Why should the user care what the implementation language is? If you name your Perl program something.pl on a Unix machine, I shall continue to look at you quizzically until either you or I leave the room. :) Rob Perl modules are in *.pm. Yes, this is enforced by Perl. -- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/ Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training! -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Starting Perl
Thank you all for ur answeres... But I've got some problems, i'd like to say first that i'm using activePerl , under windows. for O'Reilly, i couldn't subscribe or even have the 14 days trial because i don't have a credit card.. :( I have a question, because really i couldn't help myself... I don't know where to write the Perl code... it may sound weird, but it's true.. I've got something called : Perl Package manager, in activestate activeperl 5.6 I don't know what to say but i need someone to tell me from where to start... Thank you again Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo! Messenger http://mail.messenger.yahoo.co.uk -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Starting Perl
Yomna el-Tawil wrote: Thank you all for ur answeres... But I've got some problems, i'd like to say first that i'm using activePerl, under windows. for O'Reilly, i couldn't subscribe or even have the 14 days trial because i don't have a credit card.. :( I'm not sure what you mean here. O'Reilly is a book publisher who publishes, amongst other things, the definitive 'Programming Perl'. As far as know there's no subscription available. I have a question, because really i couldn't help myself... I don't know where to write the Perl code... it may sound weird, but it's true.. That's fine; let's try to get you started. You need to create a file called something like 'hello.pl', containing exactly this line: print Hello, world!\n; If you have no other text editor you can use Windows' 'notepad'. Then open a command prompt window and enter perl hello.pl You should get something printed if I have guessed right about where you are. I've got something called : Perl Package manager, in activestate activeperl 5.6 You don't need PPM unless you want to add new modules to the ones already installed in ActivePerl. Forget about it for now. I don't know what to say but i need someone to tell me from where to start... Try this and post some more questions if you're stuck. Rob -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Starting Perl
Notepad, emacs, vi, word with save as text only, anywhere you can write text. That is saved as text with no special formatting. -Original Message- From: yomna el-tawil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 7:09 AM To: Beginners Perl Subject: Starting Perl Thank you all for ur answeres... But I've got some problems, i'd like to say first that i'm using activePerl , under windows. for O'Reilly, i couldn't subscribe or even have the 14 days trial because i don't have a credit card.. :( I have a question, because really i couldn't help myself... I don't know where to write the Perl code... it may sound weird, but it's true.. I've got something called : Perl Package manager, in activestate activeperl 5.6 I don't know what to say but i need someone to tell me from where to start... Thank you again Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo! Messenger http://mail.messenger.yahoo.co.uk -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Starting Perl
yomna el-tawil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] asked: i'd like to say first that i'm using activePerl , under windows. If you've installed that properly, you're set. for O'Reilly, i couldn't subscribe or even have the 14 days trial because i don't have a credit card.. :( I have a question, because really i couldn't help myself... I don't know where to write the Perl code... Basically, it doesn't matter. Preferably, create a directory for your Perl code somewhere on your disk drive. Use any editor you like (my preference is TextPad from http://www.textpad.com/) and write your code, i.e. for starters: use warnings; print Hello, World!\n; Save that as hello.pl in your directory. Now, open a DOS box (i.e. Start Menu = Run = cmd.exe on Win2k/XP), and change to your Perl directory. Now you can run your code using the command perl hello.pl If you use Textpad, you can also integrate Perl in the editor as a tool. Write your code, save it, and the hit a simple key combo like CRTL+1 to imediately run your code. The output is catured in another editor window. HTH, Thomas HTH, Thomas -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Starting Perl
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 01:25:03PM -, Rob Dixon wrote: Yomna el-Tawil wrote: for O'Reilly, i couldn't subscribe or even have the 14 days trial because i don't have a credit card.. :( I'm not sure what you mean here. O'Reilly is a book publisher who publishes, amongst other things, the definitive 'Programming Perl'. As far as know there's no subscription available. http://safari.oreilly.com They have lots of Perl books -- mostly from O'Reilly, but a few other publishers are available as well. -- Steve -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Starting Perl
On Tuesday, Nov 11, 2003, at 04:08 US/Pacific, yomna el-tawil wrote:
[..]
But I've got some problems,
i'd like to say first that i'm using activePerl ,
under windows.
remember everyone started some place.
for O'Reilly, i couldn't subscribe or even have the 14
days trial because i don't have a credit card.. :(
you might want to check out your local book store, as you
will ultimately want to purchase a few basic books that
will just wind up being around 'for the duration'. Ultimately
you will want to get Programming Perl, 3rd Edition, you
would probably do well to get the learning perl for win32,
and then on to 'Perl Objects'...
The other trick is to use the available 'online' information
that should be accessible through 'perldoc' on your machine,
or you can read it online at:
http://www.perl.org/
which of course will recommend http://learn.perl.org and
more links... Since you are working with 5.6 you might want
to browse your way through
http://www.perldoc.com/perl5.6/
where you can read the 'POD' { Plain Old Documentation }
I have a question, because really i couldn't help myself...
don't feel bad, Perl is it's own 12-step programme,
and we all keep planning on gettin cured any day now.
Trust us, we can all give up coding any time we want
I don't know where to write the Perl code...
Well there are three core rules to always keep in mind
/Project/name_of_project/[files for project]
/src/tarBalls/[tarballs of projects worth keeping about]
/src/language/Examples/[ short files with illustrations of useful
bits ]
/MuckingAbout/[files we were just mucking about with, not a project
yet]
Remember you are the person who will have to find them when you
have that moment about
oh FreeMonge, I did that trick once
So if you keep your Projects seperate from your src code tree,
and those separated from your directory for just mucking about,
then you should be able to keep them nice and tidy.
Granted, more of us are hanging out the 'useful bits' as web
pages so we can use web-search technology on our own site to
get us clues which bits were useful...
it may sound weird, but it's true..
I've got something called : Perl Package manager, in
activestate activeperl 5.6
I don't know what to say but i need someone to tell me
from where to start...
[..]
In the Beginning Coding was harder,
Now we have Perl, and it's just sillier and sillier.
ciao
drieux
---
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Locale error starting Perl
I'm trying to get my apache web server up and running but everytime I try I get a perl error about locale settings. I have tried a few things to get it to work but none worked. I'm using RH7.1, and have setup japanese language support (japanese kb, sometimes I input japanese) with: Apache/1.3.19 (Unix) (Red-Hat/Linux) And perl, v5.6.0 built for i386-linux This is the error message I get: [root@dev /root]# /etc/rc.d/init.d/httpd start Starting httpd: perl: warning: Setting locale failed. perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings: LANGUAGE = (unset), LC_ALL = (unset), LANG = en are supported and installed on your system. perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale (C). perl: warning: Setting locale failed. perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings: LANGUAGE = (unset), LC_ALL = (unset), LANG = en are supported and installed on your system. perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale (C). [FAILED] [root@dev /root]# Thanks for the help! Jc _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Local error starting Perl
I'm trying to get my apache web server up and running but everytime I try I get a perl error about locale settings. I have tried a few things to get it to work but none effective. I'm using RH7.1, and have setup japanese language support (japanese kb, sometimes I input japanese) with the folowing Apache and Perl versions: Apache/1.3.19 (Unix) (Red-Hat/Linux) Perl, v5.6.0 built for i386-linux This is the error message I get: [root@dev /root]# /etc/rc.d/init.d/httpd start Starting httpd: perl: warning: Setting locale failed. perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings: LANGUAGE = (unset), LC_ALL = (unset), LANG = en are supported and installed on your system. perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale (C). perl: warning: Setting locale failed. perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings: LANGUAGE = (unset), LC_ALL = (unset), LANG = en are supported and installed on your system. perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale (C). [FAILED] [root@dev /root]# Thanks for the help! Jc _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
