Re: Perl is dead
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 3:52 PM, Michele Beltrame <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I think this simplicity of those installations derives from the fact that
> providers are easily able to build a php/mod_php which includes the most used
> things (mail functions, database access, image processing) directly into the
> php binary. PHP programmers only need to upload their .php files via FTP and
> they just work. No modules to install, it's all already there.
>
I like where this might go. Although everyone in the Perl community
knows TIMTOWTDI, we also know that some ways are better than others.
Nonetheless, I believe this is not the case for people outside or just
entering the Perl world, specially regarding modules and a certain
public repository we all know and love. There's been a lot of effort
in providing some support for recommendation such as annocpan,
cpanratings, cpanrt, cpants, cpantesters, and the 'related modules'
box, but they are mostly see-for-yourself-and-make-your-choice. Don't
get me wrong, all those services are marvelous, but to Perl
programmers. Beginners and enthusiasts probably won't figure them out
("so many options, so little time"), and web providers certainty won't
care much. As a suggestion that might not go anywhere (or even
introduce flame), maybe the community could discuss a set of
recommended general purpose modules for our beloved general purpose
language, ones we believe would cover most of the "popular Perl
programming". Should we turn it into a Bundle or two (CPAN-Standard,
CPAN-Enterprise, whatever), it'd be a lot easier for newcomers to know
where to look at, easier for enterprises to evaluate Perl's power, and
easier for everyone to deploy. As it would be sort of a "standard
modules installation", Michele's comment ("no modules to install, it's
all already there") would also apply to Perl (well, not Perl itself as
I'm not talking about core modules, but I hope you know what I mean).
>
> Should we go as far as creating a "mod_lightperl" alike to mod_php, which
> makes the interpreter stay resident and and bundles the commonly used
> web-related
> modules? Used together with something like HTML::Mason this could
> actually become something really akin to PHP, with the only difference
> that one writes its code in Perl. And then Dreamweaver users could use
> Perl as easily as PHP; but, at this point, more than Perl it would be
> "a web development system where you enter some Perl inside your web
> pages".
>
Like embperl?
http://perl.apache.org/embperl/
Cheers,
-b
Re: *.perl.org facelift
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Andy Wardley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I put a few ideas together for a *.perl.org facelift. > > http://wardley.org/use.perl.org/test.html > > At the moment it's just a stick in the ground. It's probably the > wrong kind of stick and not in the right place, but it's a start. > It has a nice modern ring to it, I like it! Where do you plan on putting the page ads? Or the Perl quotes? I haven't seen them... (Sorry I can't help more, layout design is really not my thing) Cheers, -b
Re: *.perl.org facelift
On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 11:44 AM, Robin Berjon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think it's a good start though. Would you mind sharing the graphics' > sources (whatever format they're in) so that other people could hack on it > without starting from scratch? > The link is in his test post: http://wardley.org/use.perl.org/sketch2-slice.psd Cheers, -b
Re: london.pm.org web site - facelifted
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 2:09 PM, Andy Wardley wrote: > Andy Wardley wrote: >> >> I can help there. > > How about this? > > http://wardley.org/london.pm.org/ > > I tarted up the layout and styling a bit, added the glass onion (I'm > determined to get that on at least one Perl site!), Not as determined as to promote the unoffical secret verbal handshake, I see :-) Anyway, "wow". It's beautiful and it still looks like london.pm.org. Very nice! Cheers, -b
Re: Have at it
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 8:03 PM, David Cantrell wrote: > On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 08:24:14PM +, L?on Brocard wrote: > >> Here, have some numbers: >> http://cpants.perl.org/dist/used_by/Badger >> http://cpants.perl.org/dist/used_by/Moose > > Have some more numbers: > http://deps.cpantesters.org/?module=Badger&perl=5.10.0&os=any+OS > http://deps.cpantesters.org/?module=Moose&perl=5.10.0&os=any+OS > I don't know about Moose, but Badger at least has a catchy (annoying) tune :-) http://www.badgerbadgerbadger.com/ Cheers, -b
Re: [OT] Perl woes
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 11:05 AM, Andy Armstrong wrote:
> On 28 Jan 2009, at 12:30, Jonathan Kimmitt wrote:
>>
>> Most people on this list seem to defend the perl design decision such
>> that
>>
>> if ($item == "xyzzy")
>>
>> should only emit a warning, because after all, a string can be converted
>> to a number with no loss of meaning (!).
>>
>> However, what about this one:
>>
>> for (my $i==0; $i<($tbl_width - 1); $i++) { }
>>
>> Is anybody seriously arguing this could possibly do anything useful. Yet
>> it
>> is not trapped out as an error unless you add the obscure syntax:
>>
>> use warnings FATAL => 'all';
>
>
> It throws a warning with 'use warnings' - which is not at all obscure. Would
> you compile C with warnings turned off?
>
My gcc would not catch it otherwise:
$ cat for.c
#include
int main (void) {
int i, tbl_width = 3;
for (i == 0; i < (tbl_width - 1); i++) {
printf("hello\n");
}
return 0;
}
$ gcc -o for for.c
$ ./for
$ gcc -Wall -o for for.c
for.c: In function 'main':
for.c:4: warning: statement with no effect
$
but I also think the author's point might be compile x runtime. On
'==' x '=', one could argue that true/false might also be used as a
begin statement for a 'for' loop :-)
Cheers,
-b
Re: *simple* blogging (addon) software
I've never used it, but Angerwhale *might* suit your needs: http://search.cpan.org/perldoc?Angerwhale Cheers, -b On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Bob Walker wrote: > On Wed, 25 Feb 2009, Simon Cozens wrote: > >> Dirk Koopman wrote: >>> >>> No MySQL/postgres or complex databases allowed, won't allow either on >>> the server. I would accept (a tad reluctantly) SQLite3, but would prefer >>> something that is directory/file based. >> >> Two good choices are Blosxom and Bryar, then. > > ive moved onto chronicle from those two. > http://www.steve.org.uk/Software/chronicle/ > i was even a good user and provided a patch instead of whining. > > > -- > Bob Walker > http://london.randomness.org.uk - http://tech.randomness.org.uk > http://londonstairs.co.uk - http://londonjoinery.com > Stairs and doors are obstacles to overcome on the way to ale and food >
Re: *simple* blogging (addon) software
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Simon Cozens wrote: > A fairly horribly restricted hosting environment *was* specified, > though. Blosxom's the right choice for something like that. > Sorry, I thought the only restriction was no database, so I was focusing more on the "...but would prefer something that is directory/file based." part of the request :-) I didn't mean to start a Catalyst/Moose dependency flame too, specially right after the Moose tech talks. Cheers, -b
[OT] New Buffy movie
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i666afabc28491e6a5d5861d83ae30855 --8< A new incarnation of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" could be coming to the big screen. "Buffy" creator Joss Whedon isn't involved and it's not set up at a studio, but Roy Lee and Doug Davison of Vertigo Entertainment are working with original movie director Fran Rubel Kuzui and her husband, Kaz Kuzui, on what is being labeled a remake or relaunch, but not a sequel or prequel. While Whedon is the person most associated with "Buffy," Kuzui and her Kuzui Enterprises have held onto the rights since the beginning, when she discovered the "Buffy" script from then-unknown Whedon. She developed the script while her husband put together the financing to make the 1992 movie, which was released by Fox. Kuzui later teamed with Gail Berman, then president of Sandollar Television, bringing back Whedon to make the TV series, which was produced by Fox TV and launched on the WB in 1997. Kuzui and Sandollar received executive producer credits on "Buffy" and its spinoff, "Angel." The new "Buffy" film, however, would have no connection to the TV series, nor would it use popular supporting characters like Angel, Willow, Xander or Spike. Vertigo and Kuzui are looking to restart the story line without trampling on the beloved existing universe created by Whedon, putting the parties in a similar situation faced by Paramount, J.J. Abrams and his crew when relaunching "Star Trek." One of the underlying ideas of "Buffy" allows Vertigo and Kuzui to do just that: that each generation has its own vampire slayer to protect it. The goal would be to make a darker, event-sized movie that would, of course, have franchise potential. The parties are meeting with writers and hearing takes, and later will look for a home for the project. The producers do not rule out Whedon's involvement but have not yet reached out to him.Speaking from Tokyo, Fran Kuzui said the company is constantly approached not only about sequels but theater, video games and foreign remakes for "Buffy." When Vertigo's Lee contacted them, they were intrigued. "It was Roy's interest in taking Buffy into a new place that grabbed us," she said, noting that original exec producer Sandy Gallin also was consulted. "It was based on our respect for what he does, and his particular sensitivity to Asian filmmakers, that we wanted to work with him." Kuzui, who is prepping do direct a movie in Japan in the fall, added: "Everything has its moment. Every movie takes on a life at some point, and this seems like the moment to do this." --8<
