On Mon, 2005-02-28 at 22:54 -0500, Uri Guttman wrote:
> > "SQ" == Sean Quinlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> SQ> Tech meeting March 8th? Stick with 2nd Tuesdays for the remainder
> SQ> of the spring (I have no conflicts for the next few months)?
>
> i'll share my mind, if nobody minds.
Note "academic" is implying "Computer Science" not "Engineering" or "IT
Education" -- professors who publish research and hope their grad
students will grow up to be professors just like them.
The eclectic nature of Perl makes it
(a) not well suited to the purist CompSci academic style
Perl
I think I just figured out why this conversation is going nowhere.
The pro-certification folks think that certification would help
convince a non-technical manager to use perl for a project.
The programmers would determine that perl is the right language
for the job on a technical basis. The
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 21:13:06 -0500, Bogart Salzberg
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> An (improved) argument for a bottom-up approach to boosting Perl...
[ various stuff I mostly agree with snipped ]
> 3. Make Perl CGI easier to use. The aid of "CGI::Carp
> qw(fatalsToBrowser)" should be built-in and
> "SQ" == Sean Quinlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
SQ> Tech meeting March 8th? Stick with 2nd Tuesdays for the remainder
SQ> of the spring (I have no conflicts for the next few months)?
i'll share my mind, if nobody minds. :)
what about a giant jello fight between the pro and con cert
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 21:07:47 -0500, James Linden Rose, III
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Monday, February 28, 2005, at 07:41 PM, Ben Tilly wrote:
> > What don't you believe? That there are rabidly anti-certification
> > people? That many prominent Perl programmers are among
> > them? If
On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 03:01:46PM -0500, Sean Quinlan wrote:
> > The last time Perl had an upsurge in popularity, it
> > was because Perl solved a new class of problem better than anything
> > else. Might I suggest that the best way to increase adoption is to
> > learn from our past successes
On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 02:40:10PM -0500, Greg London wrote:
> My worst case scenario assumed that programmers knew that perl was the
> best language for the job at hand.
So, your analysis is limited to only those who accept that Perl is the
best language for the job? Hm
My point remains:
It's been in two other posts of mine recently, but got lost in the
discussions.
Tech meeting March 8th? Stick with 2nd Tuesdays for the remainder of the
spring (I have no conflicts for the next few months)?
"mind share" as a general central topic for the next meeting? Any
presenters?
On Mon,
[Back when I introduced the "mind share" topic in January, Bogart
Salzberg was among the few people honoring my request to keep the
discussion off the list until it was determined whether it would be a
meeting topic. He sent the below messages to me directly, with a request
that it be shared
On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 09:07:47PM -0500, James Linden Rose, III wrote:
> Hmm. That page also links to the OSCON 2003 Panel Discussion on Perl
> Certification which voted 100 to 7 in favor of certification.
Just a small point of fact: that dubious misrepresentation of the panel
"vote" have
Ben, thanks for the excellent links (which in turn contained more).
Personally, with the singular exception of the sometimes vehement
(socialist?!?) opposition within the Perl community, I lean towards
seeing it as having more pro's than cons. But I do think we've taken
this conversation on our
On Monday, February 28, 2005, at 08:03 PM, John Redford wrote:
I am anti-certification. Why? To put it extremely bluntly:
certifications
are socialist. People who believe in certifications have the same naïf
mentality as people who believe in socialism.
This sounds like an opinion that's going
> "BT" == Ben Tilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
BT> On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 01:52:29 +, Federico Lucifredi
BT> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I have a bookish request: does anybody have an editorial contact at
>> O'Reilly I can exchange a few ideas with? I am cooking a proposal
Tom Metro wrote:
It would be a start, though I'm not so sure that Brainbench's
web-based, open book tests are close enough to a certification to have
the intended effect.
A self-testing program *need not* suck.
Here are four reasons why a home-grown testing program would be (could
be) better
An (improved) argument for a bottom-up approach to boosting Perl...
A bottom-up approach does not directly address the issue at hand,
Perl's reputation among important decision-makers. But as an indirect
factor it may be more effective than the top-down buzz of a "Perl
Inside" marketing
I'd start with http://www.oreilly.com/oreilly/author/intro.html.
Cheers,
Ben
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 01:52:29 +, Federico Lucifredi
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello fellow Mongers,
> I have a bookish request: does anybody have an editorial contact at O'Reilly
> I can exchange a few ideas
On Monday, February 28, 2005, at 07:41 PM, Ben Tilly wrote:
What don't you believe? That there are rabidly anti-certification
people? That many prominent Perl programmers are among
them? If you doubt that, then I'll call you reality-challenged to
your face and point you in the general direction
Hello fellow Mongers,
I have a bookish request: does anybody have an editorial contact at O'Reilly I
can exchange a few ideas with? I am cooking a proposal for them and I need a
few tips here and there.
Best - Federico
_
-- "'Problem' is a bleak word
--- Sean Quinlan mumbled on 2005-02-28 18.12.00 -0500 ---
> Function jumping (or
> whatever it's called). I'd _LOVE_ to be able to click (or highlight and
> meta-somthing, whatever) on a function or method call and have the
> editor skip directly to it's definition - even if it is from another
>
> From: James Linden Rose, III
> Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 5:49 PM
> Subject: Re: [Boston.pm] (also) Perl
>
> From: "James Linden Rose, III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Mon Feb 28, 2005 5:42:06 PM US/Eastern
> To: Adam Turoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [Boston.pm] (also) Perl
>
>
From: Sean Quinlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 18:12:00 -0500
After learning Quanta for web development I'm much more interested in
looking at improved coding tool for Perl. I've played with Eclipse a
little, and intend to get back to it when I have a a couple tuits.
* Sean Quinlan [2005/02/28 18:12]:
> [...] But here's something you basic text
> editor doesn't give you that I think Eclipse does. Function jumping (or
> whatever it's called). I'd _LOVE_ to be able to click (or highlight and
> meta-somthing, whatever) on a function or method call and have the
>
>
> After learning Quanta for web development I'm much more interested in
> looking at improved coding tool for Perl. I've played with Eclipse a
> little, and intend to get back to it when I have a a couple tuits. I'm
> not interested in WYSIWYG editors. But here's something you basic text
>
On Mon, 2005-02-28 at 16:39 -0500, Tom Metro wrote:
> I was skeptical that such things actually added to one's programming
> efficiency. My friend wasn't an IDE junkie. He spent plenty of years
> working on the command line and with text editors. His opinion was that
> these bits of automation
On Mon, 2005-02-28 at 15:39, Tom Metro wrote:
> As others have argued on the list, as programmers we know certifications
> are pointless as a technical qualification, but we're not the audience
> that needs to be convinced otherwise.
I disagree. A certification says that you have a certain
From: "James Linden Rose, III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon Feb 28, 2005 5:42:06 PM US/Eastern
To: Adam Turoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Boston.pm] (also) Perl
On Monday, February 28, 2005, at 12:46 PM, Adam Turoff wrote:
Another "worst case for certification" is that the community
> If I could write standalone programs for windows in perl, and be
> able to share those programs with my non-perl collegues at work
> without over head of them having to install perl separately, would
> work wonders for general acceptance of the language. I understand
> that I can bundled perl
Tom Metro said:
> A few years ago I hired an instructor to teach a group of junior
> developers OO programming.
Next time you're thinking of doing this, shoot me an email.
http://www.greglondon.com/iperl
>From zero-perl/zero-OO to basic OO-perl in about a hundred pages.
John Tsangaris wrote:
Is a group needed specifically for the promotion of perl?
Might not be a bad idea. It could either be a sub-group of the Perl
Foundation, or mirror it, with the focus on advocacy.
But I don't think advertising would be an efficient way to spend the
money. Instead spend it
Adam Turoff wrote:
- Another reason why Perl is a minority language is that it's not
used in academic curricula.
An interesting point.
Sean Quinlan writes:
I agree. I'd love to hear suggestions how to work on that. We teach some
Perl at BU, both under the bioinformatics program
Ben Tilly wrote:
...the next step would be getting the big name
users of Perl to put [buttons] on their sites.
This step is easier said than done.
Absolutely. I thought of the reasons you list, but the counter argument
is that a company would promote their use of Perl for the same reasons
they
John Tsangaris wrote:
Have any great advances been made with a perl gui which can be used
on multiple platforms?
At LinuxWorld I saw through 10 minute demo of Active State's Komodo
(which, by the way, was being done by a PHP developer - even Active
State is starting to drift away from Perl it
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 16:04:34 -0500, Tom Metro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sean Quinlan wrote:
[...]
> If Amazon, Yahoo, Ticketmaster, etc. are already using Perl in a big
> way, then why not put effort into making that more visible?
>
> One way is through a silly button campaign. "Built with
Sean Quinlan wrote:
I also strongly concur with brian_d_foy's goal of getting more people
(including myself ;) publishing well written articles about Perl. I
think getting more well-written technical articles, that just happen to
use Perl, into general computing periodical is a great, unobtrusive
Bogart Salzberg wrote:
How about an intermediate step: self-testing.
Others have already mentioned Brainbench. 3 or 4 years ago I actually
saw a few Perl programmer resumes with Brainbench certifications listed.
I'm sure if a bunch of Perl people wanted to write a better test,
Brainbench would
Aaron Sherman wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2005-02-28 at 15:39, Gyepi SAM wrote:
>
> > As I recall, there are quite a few
> > cross language programmers on this list...
>
> I've never used cross, but I hear it's
> a great language. What do you use it for?
It's most useful for stuff like
"Hey, you
On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 03:43:24PM -0500, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-02-28 at 15:39, Gyepi SAM wrote:
>
> > As I recall, there are quite a few cross language programmers on this
> > list...
>
> I've never used cross, but I hear it's a great language. What do you use
> it for?
Warding
On Mon, 2005-02-28 at 15:39, Gyepi SAM wrote:
> As I recall, there are quite a few cross language programmers on this
> list...
I've never used cross, but I hear it's a great language. What do you use
it for?
--
â 781-324-3772
â [EMAIL PROTECTED]
â http://www.ajs.com/~ajs
Adam Turoff wrote:
You do not entertain the possibility that certification could
possibly be bad and do damage to the community...
It hasn't hurt Linux.
Now there's an open source project that has had extreme success in
moving into the enterprise, while still retaining the hacker community.
The
On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 01:40:35PM -0500, Kenneth A Graves wrote:
> I haven't gotten around to playing with Pugs yet, but I did build
> Haskell this weekend. It's a functional-programming conspiracy.
It must be: I am using LISP, after a long hiatus, and really liking it. I
simply did not
On Mon, 2005-02-28 at 12:46 -0500, Adam Turoff wrote:
> Stating that the _one_ "worst case for certification" is for Perl
> programmers get their managers to pay fees is missing the point. You do
> not entertain the possibility that certification could possibly be bad
> and do damage to the
Adam Turoff said:
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 11:57:47AM -0500, Greg London wrote:
>> Adam Turoff said:
>> > On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 10:01:32AM -0500, Greg London wrote:
>> >> From a game-theory point of view, I think certification is an overall
>> win.
>> >> The worst case scenario for
Ruby is easier for Perl people to get into than Haskell. By the same
token, learning Ruby will expand your horizons less than Haskell.
Which is preferable depends on your point of view.
Cheers,
Ben
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 13:49:59 -0500, Benjamin Kram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just grabbed
I just grabbed binary of Haskell. I'm thinking of poking around with that as
well, and Ruby...
b
On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 01:40:35PM -0500, Kenneth A Graves wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-02-28 at 13:32, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> > On Mon, 2005-02-28 at 12:51, Benjamin Kram wrote:
> > > Has anyone had a
On Mon, 2005-02-28 at 13:32, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-02-28 at 12:51, Benjamin Kram wrote:
> > Has anyone had a chance to play with pugs?
> > I just svned down a copy and was going to toy with it a bit.
>
> Only a little bit. I am, however, sure that the correct way to boost the
>
On Mon, 2005-02-28 at 12:51, Benjamin Kram wrote:
> Has anyone had a chance to play with pugs?
> I just svned down a copy and was going to toy with it a bit.
Only a little bit. I am, however, sure that the correct way to boost the
popularity of your favorite niche language is to write a compiler
On Feb 25, 2005, at 11:28 PM, Chris Devers wrote:
Can you do any better than E.F. Codd's "A relational model for large
shared databanks", from "Communications of the ACM" 13(6), pp377-387 ?
I'm trying to find out...
I scoured the (incredibly clunky) ACM site and eventually found the
prize: a PDF
Has anyone had a chance to play with pugs?
I just svned down a copy and was going to toy with it a bit.
cheers,
b
--
"it would be horrid to be robbed
by the wrong kind of people"
-archy
Don Marquis, "the big bad wolf", 1935
On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 11:57:47AM -0500, Greg London wrote:
> Adam Turoff said:
> > On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 10:01:32AM -0500, Greg London wrote:
> >> From a game-theory point of view, I think certification is an overall win.
> >> The worst case scenario for certification would be that gurus have
On Feb 28, 2005, at 11:18 AM, James Linden Rose, III wrote:
they could then use their certified credentials to suggest Perl for
real world problem solving.
How about an intermediate step: self-testing.
For example, one of the non-corporate Perl sites could set up a free
automated test. Users
On Mon, 2005-02-28 at 11:16 -0500, Adam Turoff wrote:
> The number of Perl job openings today, during the boom, or during the
> bust is largely irrelevant. Java was supposed to be the programming
> languages to end all programming languages. It wasn't then, and it
> isn't now. Interestingly,
Adam Turoff said:
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 10:01:32AM -0500, Greg London wrote:
>> From a game-theory point of view, I think certification is an overall win.
>> The worst case scenario for certification would be that gurus have to
>> get their manager to pay for them to take the test.
>>
>> The
On Monday, February 28, 2005, at 09:28 AM, John Saylor wrote:
hi
( 05.02.25 16:56 -0500 ) James Linden Rose, III:
Certification for Perl will certainly NOT raise the intellectual bar
of its practitioners, but it will certainly make many more people into
converts on both the programmer and the
On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 10:01:32AM -0500, Greg London wrote:
> From a game-theory point of view, I think certification is an overall win.
> The worst case scenario for certification would be that gurus have to
> get their manager to pay for them to take the test.
>
> The worst case scenario for
On 28 Feb 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> i still have my cert that i bought from them for my $2! it is all the
>> perl cert i need.
>
> At the very least there should be a Perl hacker test (I haven't seen one).
I found this by googling for
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> i still have my cert that i bought from them for my $2! it is all the
> perl cert i need.
At the very least there should be a Perl hacker test (I haven't seen one).
Here's a start... I'll be glad to maintain this (if there's been
others, please
John Saylor said:
> hi
>
> ( 05.02.25 16:56 -0500 ) James Linden Rose, III:
>> Certification for Perl will certainly NOT raise the intellectual bar
>> of its practitioners, but it will certainly make many more people into
>> converts on both the programmer and the manager side of the equation.
hi
( 05.02.25 16:56 -0500 ) James Linden Rose, III:
> Certification for Perl will certainly NOT raise the intellectual bar
> of its practitioners, but it will certainly make many more people into
> converts on both the programmer and the manager side of the equation.
converts to what- perl or
hi
( 05.02.25 17:13 -0500 ) Greg London:
> So, if Certification convinces Mike to allow
> perl, and Eve isn't an idiot, it's an overall win.
and if elephants had wings, they'd be the biggest birds by far.
--
\js oblique strategy: ask people to work against their better judgement
60 matches
Mail list logo
