f



FAQ 1.12 What's the difference between "perl" and "Perl"? #17

This is an excerpt from the latest version perlfaq1.pod, which
comes with the standard Perl distribution. These postings aim to 
reduce the number of repeated questions as well as allow the community
to review and update the answers. The latest version of the complete
perlfaq is at http://faq.perl.org .

--------------------------------------------------------------------

1.12: What's the difference between "perl" and "Perl"?

    One bit. Oh, you weren't talking ASCII? :-) Larry now uses "Perl" to
    signify the language proper and "perl" the implementation of it, i.e.
    the current interpreter. Hence Tom's quip that "Nothing but perl can
    parse Perl."

    Before the first edition of *Programming perl*, people commonly referred
    to the language as "perl", and its name appeared that way in the title
    because it referred to the interpreter. In the book, Randal Schwartz
    capitalised the language's name to make it stand out better when
    typeset. This convention was adopted by the community, and the second
    edition became *Programming Perl*, using the capitalized version of the
    name to refer to the language.

    You may or may not choose to follow this usage. For example, parallelism
    means "awk and perl" and "Python and Perl" look good, while "awk and
    Perl" and "Python and perl" do not. But never write "PERL", because perl
    is not an acronym, apocryphal folklore and post-facto expansions
    notwithstanding.



--------------------------------------------------------------------

The perlfaq-workers, a group of volunteers, maintain the perlfaq. They
are not necessarily experts in every domain where Perl might show up,
so please include as much information as possible and relevant in any
corrections. The perlfaq-workers also don't have access to every
operating system or platform, so please include relevant details for
corrections to examples that do not work on particular platforms.
Working code is greatly appreciated.

If you'd like to help maintain the perlfaq, see the details in 
perlfaq.pod.
0
brian125 (4408)
7/7/2008 7:03:02 PM
comp.lang.perl.misc 33233 articles. 2 followers. brian (1246) is leader. Post Follow

41 Replies
562 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 56

PerlFAQ Server wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 1.12: What's the difference between "perl" and "Perl"?
>

....

>    You may or may not choose to follow this usage. For example,
>    parallelism means "awk and perl" and "Python and Perl" look good,
>    while "awk and Perl" and "Python and perl" do not. But never write
>    "PERL", because perl is not an acronym, apocryphal folklore and
>    post-facto expansions notwithstanding.

Perhaps this needs to be amended based on the following:

< http://tinyurl.com/6joyuz >  <1>
Linux Magazine, Friday, October 15th, 1999, by Larry Wall:

" Anyway, I did some sneaky things to make sure Perl developed a healthy
" culture. While we took ourselves very seriously in some ways, we also
" tried to laugh at ourselves occasionally. Perl not only stands for the
" Practical Extraction and Report Language, but it also stands for the
" Pathologically Eclectic Rubbish Lister.


This is from Larry's own words, and as such, it is perfect reasonable to 
describe "perl" or "Perl" as "Practical Extraction and Report Language", 
which, when compressed, becomes "PERL". I therefore put forth that this 
FAQ is incorrect in saying "never write 'PERL'", as it is contradicted 
by the words of Larry Wall him self, "Perl not only stands for the 
Practical Extraction and Report Language, Pathologically Eclectic 
Rubbish Lister", and "PERL" therefore a synonym for either of those two 
expansions. Whether or not it's a "true acronym" or a "backronym", is 
beside the point.


<1>
http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:lk3LdszM5mgJ:www.linux-mag.com/id/322+larry+wall+%22%22Practical+Extraction+and+Report+Language%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=38&gl=us


-- 
Gordon C. Etly
Email: perl -e "print q{}.reverse(q{moc.liamg@ylte.nodrog})" 


0
Gordon
7/7/2008 8:53:47 PM
In article <6dfe2tF27ogfU1@mid.individual.net>, Gordon Corbin Etly
<gvinalcde@gmail.com> wrote:

> PerlFAQ Server wrote:
> 
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > 1.12: What's the difference between "perl" and "Perl"?
> >
> 
> ...
> 
> >    You may or may not choose to follow this usage. For example,
> >    parallelism means "awk and perl" and "Python and Perl" look good,
> >    while "awk and Perl" and "Python and perl" do not. But never write
> >    "PERL", because perl is not an acronym, apocryphal folklore and
> >    post-facto expansions notwithstanding.
> 

> This is from Larry's own words, and as such, it is perfect reasonable to 
> describe "perl" or "Perl" 

Let's not go through this again. Larry gave two backronyms (that's the
"post-facto expansion" part of the answer), and even then did not
uppercase the entire word.
0
brian
7/8/2008 3:18:47 PM
>>>>> "bdf" == brian d foy <brian.d.foy@gmail.com> writes:

    bdf> Let's not go through this again. Larry gave two backronyms
    bdf> (that's the "post-facto expansion" part of the answer), and
    bdf> even then did not uppercase the entire word.

And he did so as *jokes* -- the fact that some wit realized that Ford,
as in the auto manufacturer, could be expanded to Fix Or Repair Daily,
does not mean that the name of that company should be correctly written
as FORD.  Or that the joking expansion of Emacs as "Eight Megs and
Constantly Swapping" means that the editor's name should be written
EMACS instead of Emacs.

Charlton


-- 
Charlton Wilbur
cwilbur@chromatico.net
0
Charlton
7/8/2008 4:49:17 PM
brian d foy wrote:
> In article <6dfe2tF27ogfU1@mid.individual.net>, Gordon Corbin Etly
> <gvinalcde@gmail.com> wrote:
> > PerlFAQ Server wrote:

> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > 1.12: What's the difference between "perl" and "Perl"?

....

> > >    You may or may not choose to follow this usage. For example,
> > >    parallelism means "awk and perl" and "Python and Perl" look 
> > > good,
> > >    while "awk and Perl" and "Python and perl" do not. But never
> > >    write "PERL", because perl is not an acronym, apocryphal
> > >    folklore and post-facto expansions notwithstanding.

> > This is from Larry's own words, and as such, it is perfect
> > reasonable to describe "perl" or "Perl"

> Let's not go through this again. Larry gave two backronyms (that's the
> "post-facto expansion" part of the answer),

Thank you for replying.


> and even then did not uppercase the entire word.

He didn't have to. Larry said:

< http://tinyurl.com/6joyuz >
" Perl not only stands for the Practical Extraction and Report
" Language, but it also stands for the Pathologically Eclectic
" Rubbish Lister.

So if Larry himself said that's what Perl stands for, why is it wrong to 
write either of those as "PERL" for short? This is the point that no one 
has really answered, and I think it because none of you want to answer 
that because you know the result is counter to the view.

I'm really not attempting to be offense here in any way. From where I am 
sitting, this seems as clear as a brand new plate glass window, and that 
for what ever reason, the arguments against it seem to be designed more 
to preserve the status quo, rather than an explanation of why it's 
really wrong.

Please, just take some time to think this over, maybe you too will see 
some sense in this:

1) Larry say Perl stands for either of those two expansions.
2) So what is wrong with writing either of those expansions
   as "PERL" for short?


Also, feel free to email me to discuss this or anything else (please see 
sig.)


-- 
Gordon C. Etly
Email: perl -e "print q{}.reverse(q{moc.liamg@ylte.nodrog})" 


0
Waylen
7/8/2008 5:44:03 PM
Waylen Gumbal wrote:
> brian d foy wrote:
>> In article <6dfe2tF27ogfU1@mid.individual.net>, Gordon Corbin Etly
>> <gvinalcde@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> PerlFAQ Server wrote:
>
>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> 1.12: What's the difference between "perl" and "Perl"?
>
> ...
>
>>>>    You may or may not choose to follow this usage. For example,
>>>>    parallelism means "awk and perl" and "Python and Perl" look
>>>> good,
>>>>    while "awk and Perl" and "Python and perl" do not. But never
>>>>    write "PERL", because perl is not an acronym, apocryphal
>>>>    folklore and post-facto expansions notwithstanding.
>
>>> This is from Larry's own words, and as such, it is perfect
>>> reasonable to describe "perl" or "Perl"
>
>> Let's not go through this again. Larry gave two backronyms (that's
>> the "post-facto expansion" part of the answer),
>
> Thank you for replying.
>
>
>> and even then did not uppercase the entire word.
>
> He didn't have to. Larry said:
>
> < http://tinyurl.com/6joyuz >
> " Perl not only stands for the Practical Extraction and Report
> " Language, but it also stands for the Pathologically Eclectic
> " Rubbish Lister.
>
> So if Larry himself said that's what Perl stands for, why is it wrong
> to write either of those as "PERL" for short? This is the point that
> no one has really answered, and I think it because none of you want
> to answer that because you know the result is counter to the view.
>
> I'm really not attempting to be offense here in any way. From where I
> am sitting, this seems as clear as a brand new plate glass window,
> and that for what ever reason, the arguments against it seem to be
> designed more to preserve the status quo, rather than an explanation
> of why it's really wrong.
>
> Please, just take some time to think this over, maybe you too will see
> some sense in this:
>
> 1) Larry say Perl stands for either of those two expansions.
> 2) So what is wrong with writing either of those expansions
>   as "PERL" for short?
>
>
> Also, feel free to email me to discuss this or anything else (please
> see sig.)


I posted using my cousin's account with out realizing it (we share one 
computer.) Apologies for any confusion.

-- 
Gordon C. Etly
Email: perl -e "print q{}.reverse(q{moc.liamg@ylte.nodrog})" 


0
Gordon
7/8/2008 6:02:50 PM
Waylen Gumbal schrieb:
> brian d foy wrote:
>> Let's not go through this again. Larry gave two backronyms (that's the
>> "post-facto expansion" part of the answer),
> 
> Thank you for replying.
> 
> 
>> and even then did not uppercase the entire word.
> 
> He didn't have to. Larry said:
> 
> < http://tinyurl.com/6joyuz >
> " Perl not only stands for the Practical Extraction and Report
> " Language, but it also stands for the Pathologically Eclectic
> " Rubbish Lister.
> 
> So if Larry himself said that's what Perl stands for, why is it wrong to 
> write either of those as "PERL" for short? 

Because Larry did not say "Perl stands for PERL".

You may write "Practical Extraction and Report Language" at any time you 
encounter "Perl", because that's what Larry said Perl stands for.

You may also write "Pathologically Eclectic Rubbish Lister" at any time 
you encounter "Perl", because that's what Larry said Perl stands for.

You may not abbreviate either one to "P. E. R. L." or "P" or "PERL" 
because that's not what Larry said.

HTH

Bye
  Achim

This is the point that no one
> has really answered, and I think it because none of you want to answer 
> that because you know the result is counter to the view.
> 
> I'm really not attempting to be offense here in any way. From where I am 
> sitting, this seems as clear as a brand new plate glass window, and that 
> for what ever reason, the arguments against it seem to be designed more 
> to preserve the status quo, rather than an explanation of why it's 
> really wrong.
> 
> Please, just take some time to think this over, maybe you too will see 
> some sense in this:
> 
> 1) Larry say Perl stands for either of those two expansions.
> 2) So what is wrong with writing either of those expansions
>    as "PERL" for short?
> 
> 
> Also, feel free to email me to discuss this or anything else (please see 
> sig.)
> 
> 
0
Achim
7/8/2008 6:04:43 PM
Achim Peters wrote:
> Waylen Gumbal schrieb:
> > brian d foy wrote:

> > > Let's not go through this again. Larry gave two backronyms (that's
> > > the "post-facto expansion" part of the answer),

> > Thank you for replying.

> > > and even then did not uppercase the entire word.

> > He didn't have to. Larry said:
> >
> > < http://tinyurl.com/6joyuz >
> > " Perl not only stands for the Practical Extraction and Report
> > " Language, but it also stands for the Pathologically Eclectic
> > " Rubbish Lister.
> >
> > So if Larry himself said that's what Perl stands for, why is it
> > wrong to write either of those as "PERL" for short?

> Because Larry did not say "Perl stands for PERL".

You're making the same mistake as others. I didn't say nor quote 
anything about Larry saying "PERL". He did say Perl can stand for 
"Practical Extraction and Report" and one other expansion. What I've 
been asking is why would it be wrong to write "PERL" for to mean 
"Practical Extraction and Report Language" in short.


> You may not abbreviate either one to "P. E. R. L." or "P" or "PERL"
> because that's not what Larry said.

Please tell me where it says you cannot write "PERL" to mean "Practical 
Extraction and Report Language" in short? Where is it written that this 
explicitly cannot be done? That's all I ask, and no one wants to give a 
real answer other than reiterating the status quo. That is not the same 
as delivering a concrete explaining of why it is wrong, and this is why 
I continue to put forth that there is nothing inherently wrong.


--
Gordon C. Etly
Email: perl -e "print q{}.reverse(q{moc.liamg@ylte.nodrog})" 


0
Gordon
7/8/2008 7:56:35 PM
>>>>> "GCE" == Gordon Corbin Etly <gvinalcde@gmail.com> writes:

    GCE> Please tell me where it says you cannot write "PERL" to mean
    GCE> "Practical Extraction and Report Language" in short? Where is
    GCE> it written that this explicitly cannot be done? That's all I
    GCE> ask, and no one wants to give a real answer other than
    GCE> reiterating the status quo. That is not the same as delivering
    GCE> a concrete explaining of why it is wrong, and this is why I
    GCE> continue to put forth that there is nothing inherently wrong.

In an abstract sense, there's nothing inherently wrong with writing
PERL.  But, as has been explained to you at least a dozen times, this is
a shibboleth that the core of the Perl community uses to distinguish
between people who are in the Perl community and people who are not.  

If you write PERL, you are marking yourself as an outsider in the eyes
of people who are at the core of the Perl community.  Charity and
politeness dictate that you should be informed of this; you have been.

No, there's nothing technically wrong with PERL, expanded as you
describe.  Practically, it marks people who use it as either clueless
novices, who haven't yet encountered the FAQ, or as argumentative twits,
who have encountered the FAQ and choose to argue usage instead of doing
something more productive with everyone's time.  As such, the shibboleth
serves a very useful purpose; it allows me to dismiss you (and,
incidentally, your "cousin," who has a very similar writing and
argumentation style to you) as undeserving of further of my time.

Charlton








-- 
Charlton Wilbur
cwilbur@chromatico.net
0
Charlton
7/8/2008 8:23:36 PM
Charlton Wilbur wrote:
>>>>>> "GCE" == Gordon Corbin Etly <gvinalcde@gmail.com> writes:

> > Please tell me where it says you cannot write "PERL" to mean
> > "Practical Extraction and Report Language" in short? Where is
> > it written that this explicitly cannot be done? That's all I
> > ask, and no one wants to give a real answer other than
> > reiterating the status quo. That is not the same as delivering
> > a concrete explaining of why it is wrong, and this is why I
> > continue to put forth that there is nothing inherently wrong.

> In an abstract sense, there's nothing inherently wrong with writing
> PERL.  But, as has been explained to you at least a dozen times, this
> is a shibboleth that the core of the Perl community uses to
> distinguish between people who are in the Perl community and people
> who are not.

And I've been pointing out to people like yourself that this so called 
"shibboleth" is flawed. As you point out, there is nothing inherently 
wrong with writing "PERL", and even more so, it actually proves one has 
read the words of Larry himself, whether directly or through other 
sources (including perldoc.)


> If you write PERL, you are marking yourself as an outsider in the eyes
> of people who are at the core of the Perl community.

I strongly disagree. It shows you are a free thinking individual who 
doesn't just conform because they are told to.


> Charity and politeness dictate that you should be informed of this;
> you have been.

And I started out by politely arguing that such claims didn't make sense 
and that there wasn't anything inherently wrong with it.



> No, there's nothing technically wrong with PERL, expanded as you
> describe.

Agreed.


> Practically, it marks people who use it as either clueless
> novices, who haven't yet encountered the FAQ, or as argumentative
> twits, who have encountered the FAQ and choose to argue usage instead
> of doing something more productive with everyone's time.

So are you saying that if one chooses to use the words of Larry Wall 
himself, they are clueless and a twit, all because an FAQ someone wrote 
says otherwise? Do you mean to tell me an FAQ cannot be wrong? Come on, 
you know better than that.


> the shibboleth serves a very useful purpose; it allows me to dismiss
> you

It's a shame that you do not want to be more flexible in the ideals you 
believe in.


> (and, incidentally, your "cousin,"

If you must know, Way is my first cousin and we grew up together so 
we're practically brothers. He lost his parent's when he was 3 and we've 
were 7 up together since an we've always been close and yes we do tend 
to think alike. We've had similar experiences and many shared interests, 
including those pertaining to computer science, and so we have similar 
views on many subjects (not all, but many), including the problem of 
inflexibility among you.


-- 
Gordon C. Etly
Email: perl -e "print q{}.reverse(q{moc.liamg@ylte.nodrog})" 


0
Gordon
7/8/2008 9:45:33 PM
On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 14:45:33 -0700, "Gordon Corbin Etly" <gvinalcde@gmail.com> wrote:

>Charlton Wilbur wrote:
>>>>>>> "GCE" == Gordon Corbin Etly <gvinalcde@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> > Please tell me where it says you cannot write "PERL" to mean
>> > "Practical Extraction and Report Language" in short? Where is
>> > it written that this explicitly cannot be done? That's all I
>> > ask, and no one wants to give a real answer other than
>> > reiterating the status quo. That is not the same as delivering
>> > a concrete explaining of why it is wrong, and this is why I
>> > continue to put forth that there is nothing inherently wrong.
>
>> In an abstract sense, there's nothing inherently wrong with writing
>> PERL.  But, as has been explained to you at least a dozen times, this
>> is a shibboleth that the core of the Perl community uses to
>> distinguish between people who are in the Perl community and people
>> who are not.
>
>And I've been pointing out to people like yourself that this so called 
>"shibboleth" is flawed. As you point out, there is nothing inherently 
>wrong with writing "PERL", and even more so, it actually proves one has 
>read the words of Larry himself, whether directly or through other 
>sources (including perldoc.)
>
>
>> If you write PERL, you are marking yourself as an outsider in the eyes
>> of people who are at the core of the Perl community.
>
>I strongly disagree. It shows you are a free thinking individual who 
>doesn't just conform because they are told to.
>
>
>> Charity and politeness dictate that you should be informed of this;
>> you have been.
>
>And I started out by politely arguing that such claims didn't make sense 
>and that there wasn't anything inherently wrong with it.
>
>
>
>> No, there's nothing technically wrong with PERL, expanded as you
>> describe.
>
>Agreed.
>
>
>> Practically, it marks people who use it as either clueless
>> novices, who haven't yet encountered the FAQ, or as argumentative
>> twits, who have encountered the FAQ and choose to argue usage instead
>> of doing something more productive with everyone's time.
>
>So are you saying that if one chooses to use the words of Larry Wall 
>himself, they are clueless and a twit, all because an FAQ someone wrote 
>says otherwise? Do you mean to tell me an FAQ cannot be wrong? Come on, 
>you know better than that.
>
>
>> the shibboleth serves a very useful purpose; it allows me to dismiss
>> you
>
>It's a shame that you do not want to be more flexible in the ideals you 
>believe in.
>
>
>> (and, incidentally, your "cousin,"
>
>If you must know, Way is my first cousin and we grew up together so 
>we're practically brothers. He lost his parent's when he was 3 and we've 
>were 7 up together since an we've always been close and yes we do tend 
>to think alike. We've had similar experiences and many shared interests, 
>including those pertaining to computer science, and so we have similar 
>views on many subjects (not all, but many), including the problem of 
>inflexibility among you.


Since PERL is not a standard, sanctioned by ANSI, it is not anything but an implemtation.
The difference between PERL, Perl and perl is nothing whatsoever.. period!

sln
0
sln
7/8/2008 11:06:39 PM
On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 23:06:39 GMT, sln@netherlands.com wrote:

>On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 14:45:33 -0700, "Gordon Corbin Etly" <gvinalcde@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Charlton Wilbur wrote:
>>>>>>>> "GCE" == Gordon Corbin Etly <gvinalcde@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> > Please tell me where it says you cannot write "PERL" to mean
>>> > "Practical Extraction and Report Language" in short? Where is
>>> > it written that this explicitly cannot be done? That's all I
>>> > ask, and no one wants to give a real answer other than
>>> > reiterating the status quo. That is not the same as delivering
>>> > a concrete explaining of why it is wrong, and this is why I
>>> > continue to put forth that there is nothing inherently wrong.
>>
>>> In an abstract sense, there's nothing inherently wrong with writing
>>> PERL.  But, as has been explained to you at least a dozen times, this
>>> is a shibboleth that the core of the Perl community uses to
>>> distinguish between people who are in the Perl community and people
>>> who are not.
>>
>>And I've been pointing out to people like yourself that this so called 
>>"shibboleth" is flawed. As you point out, there is nothing inherently 
>>wrong with writing "PERL", and even more so, it actually proves one has 
>>read the words of Larry himself, whether directly or through other 
>>sources (including perldoc.)
>>
>>
>>> If you write PERL, you are marking yourself as an outsider in the eyes
>>> of people who are at the core of the Perl community.
>>
>>I strongly disagree. It shows you are a free thinking individual who 
>>doesn't just conform because they are told to.
>>
>>
>>> Charity and politeness dictate that you should be informed of this;
>>> you have been.
>>
>>And I started out by politely arguing that such claims didn't make sense 
>>and that there wasn't anything inherently wrong with it.
>>
>>
>>
>>> No, there's nothing technically wrong with PERL, expanded as you
>>> describe.
>>
>>Agreed.
>>
>>
>>> Practically, it marks people who use it as either clueless
>>> novices, who haven't yet encountered the FAQ, or as argumentative
>>> twits, who have encountered the FAQ and choose to argue usage instead
>>> of doing something more productive with everyone's time.
>>
>>So are you saying that if one chooses to use the words of Larry Wall 
>>himself, they are clueless and a twit, all because an FAQ someone wrote 
>>says otherwise? Do you mean to tell me an FAQ cannot be wrong? Come on, 
>>you know better than that.
>>
>>
>>> the shibboleth serves a very useful purpose; it allows me to dismiss
>>> you
>>
>>It's a shame that you do not want to be more flexible in the ideals you 
>>believe in.
>>
>>
>>> (and, incidentally, your "cousin,"
>>
>>If you must know, Way is my first cousin and we grew up together so 
>>we're practically brothers. He lost his parent's when he was 3 and we've 
>>were 7 up together since an we've always been close and yes we do tend 
>>to think alike. We've had similar experiences and many shared interests, 
>>including those pertaining to computer science, and so we have similar 
>>views on many subjects (not all, but many), including the problem of 
>>inflexibility among you.
>
>
>Since PERL is not a standard, sanctioned by ANSI, it is not anything but an implemtation.
>The difference between PERL, Perl and perl is nothing whatsoever.. period!
>
>sln

There is a uphamism used to represent a distribution, aka perl, with the idealized
mataphor Perl, as is the subject of this FAQ.

sln
0
sln
7/9/2008 12:22:40 AM
sln@netherlands.com wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 23:06:39 GMT, sln@netherlands.com wrote:
> > On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 14:45:33 -0700, "Gordon Corbin Etly" wrote:
> > > Charlton Wilbur wrote:

> > > > Practically, it marks people who use it as either clueless
> > > > novices, who haven't yet encountered the FAQ, or as 
> > > > argumentative
> > > > twits, who have encountered the FAQ and choose to argue usage
> > > > instead of doing something more productive with everyone's time.

> > > So are you saying that if one chooses to use the words of Larry 
> > > Wall
> > > himself, they are clueless and a twit, all because an FAQ someone
> > > wrote says otherwise? Do you mean to tell me an FAQ cannot be
> > > wrong? Come on, you know better than that.

> > PERL is not a standard, sanctioned by ANSI, it is not anything
> > but an implemtation. The difference between PERL, Perl and perl is
> > nothing whatsoever.. period!
>
> There is a uphamism used to represent a distribution, aka perl, with
> the idealized mataphor Perl, as is the subject of this FAQ.

True. And at the same time, you have a description, which comes from 
Larry Wall, the creator, and also appears in the official documentation, 
"Practical Extraction and Report Language", so writing PERL should be 
taken to signify you mean to write "Practical Extraction and Report 
Language", just as writing something like IIRC or FWIW or YMMV or some 
such is short other phases. Notice that when most people write such 
shorts, they too are typically written in upper casing. So I truly full 
heartedly do not understand this obsession some people have with simply 
writing PERL. If Larry Wall said it and used it, why force a taboo of 
writing it in short hand. It just makes no sense.


-- 
Gordon C. Etly
Email: perl -e "print q{}.reverse(q{moc.liamg@ylte.nodrog})" 


0
Gordon
7/9/2008 12:47:36 AM
On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 17:47:36 -0700, "Gordon Corbin Etly" <g.seesig@gmail.com> wrote:

>sln@netherlands.com wrote:
>> On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 23:06:39 GMT, sln@netherlands.com wrote:
>> > On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 14:45:33 -0700, "Gordon Corbin Etly" wrote:
>> > > Charlton Wilbur wrote:
>
>> > > > Practically, it marks people who use it as either clueless
>> > > > novices, who haven't yet encountered the FAQ, or as 
>> > > > argumentative
>> > > > twits, who have encountered the FAQ and choose to argue usage
>> > > > instead of doing something more productive with everyone's time.
>
>> > > So are you saying that if one chooses to use the words of Larry 
>> > > Wall
>> > > himself, they are clueless and a twit, all because an FAQ someone
>> > > wrote says otherwise? Do you mean to tell me an FAQ cannot be
>> > > wrong? Come on, you know better than that.
>
>> > PERL is not a standard, sanctioned by ANSI, it is not anything
>> > but an implemtation. The difference between PERL, Perl and perl is
>> > nothing whatsoever.. period!
>>
>> There is a uphamism used to represent a distribution, aka perl, with
>> the idealized mataphor Perl, as is the subject of this FAQ.
>
>True. And at the same time, you have a description, which comes from 
>Larry Wall, the creator,

I don't think this guy is the CREATOR, there is only one.

> If Larry Wall said it and used it, why force a taboo of 
>writing it in short hand. It just makes no sense.

Again, there is only one GOD, God or god...

sln
0
sln
7/9/2008 1:06:42 AM
Waylen Gumbal <wgumgfy@gmail.com> wrote:

> 2) So what is wrong with writing either of those expansions
>    as "PERL" for short?


Because people will think less of you.

Telling people that they should not think less of those who
write PERL will not change their minds.

Seeing people who write PERL and who also know something about
Perl programming might change their minds.

Or, conversely, not seeing people who write PERL display a lack
of Perl programming skill might change that.

You cannot affect what people think "by decree".

They will make their own observations, and form their opinions from those.

If you want folks to stop thinking less of those who write PERL,
then consider how you might be able to influence what they observe.


-- 
Tad McClellan
email: perl -le "print scalar reverse qq/moc.noitatibaher\100cmdat/"
0
Tad
7/9/2008 2:52:48 AM
On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 14:45:33 -0700 "Gordon Corbin Etly" <gvinalcde@gmail.com> wrote: 

GCE> Charlton Wilbur wrote:
>> If you write PERL, you are marking yourself as an outsider in the eyes
>> of people who are at the core of the Perl community.

GCE> I strongly disagree. It shows you are a free thinking individual who 
GCE> doesn't just conform because they are told to.

That would apply to most criminals, most spammers, and the Godzilla
troll too.  I'm just pointing out that "conformity" is not necessarily a
bad thing, not equating you with any of those people.

IMHO, putting "PERL" on your resume is a sure way to disqualify yourself
from decent Perl jobs.  Similarly, using it in a post is a sure way to
annoy people.  You can explain in a footnote that Larry Wall told you it
was OK, it won't matter.  It's a social problem, not a technical one.

As I mentioned above, "conformity" (or, in its less negative forms,
"respect for tradition" and "acceptance of social norms") is not
necessarily a bad thing when you're dealing with social problems.

I'm not sure how much more I can explain this before it becomes like a
talk with a 4-year old.  "Why do I have to share my doll?"--"Because you
should be nice to your sister."--"Why do I have to be nice to her?"--etc.

Ted
0
Ted
7/9/2008 2:02:07 PM
Ted Zlatanov wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 14:45:33 -0700 "Gordon Corbin Etly"
> <gvinalcde@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Charlton Wilbur wrote:

> > > If you write PERL, you are marking yourself as an outsider in the
> > > eyes of people who are at the core of the Perl community.

> > I strongly disagree. It shows you are a free thinking individual who
> > doesn't just conform because they are told to.

> That would apply to most criminals, most spammers, and the Godzilla
> troll too.

That is true, but it's not the case here.


> I'm just pointing out that "conformity" is not necessarily a bad 
> thing,
> not equating you with any of those people.

In this case, it's the forcing of conformity based on a shared belief. 
To me it's wrong to force your beliefs on other people.


> IMHO, putting "PERL" on your resume is a sure way to disqualify
> yourself from decent Perl jobs.

This is just not true. I have been through many kinds of interviews over 
the years, and I have never been disqualified for miss-casing the name 
of a programming language. The end result: it's just not that important.


> Similarly, using it in a post is a sure way to annoy people.  You
> can explain in a footnote that Larry Wall told you it was OK, it
> won't matter.  It's a social problem, not a technical one.

But that is not a reason to force a particular view on everyone. Not 
everyone who is a decent programmer (or "perl hacker") wants to be 
forced to conform to a particular view. You have to realize this or 
you're living in a bubble.


> As I mentioned above, "conformity" (or, in its less negative forms,
> "respect for tradition" and "acceptance of social norms") is not
> necessarily a bad thing when you're dealing with social problems.

I understand what you are saying, but conformity is not the same as 
"respect for tradition" and "acceptance of social norms". It's more of 
an expectation that you comply with someone's or some group's view on 
something - something known as "group think" - giving the perception 
that you must conform, or being pressured to do so, or you're "not one 
of the group."

It's no different then a primary-school kid being outcast for simply 
being different. It's just wrong.


--
Gordon C. Etly
Email: perl -e "print q{}.reverse(q{moc.liamg@ylte.nodrog})" 


0
Gordon
7/9/2008 4:44:14 PM
Tad J McClellan wrote:
> Waylen Gumbal <wgumgfy@gmail.com> wrote:

> > 2) So what is wrong with writing either of those expansions
> >    as "PERL" for short?

> Because people will think less of you.

No, you mean because *you* may think less of such a person. That's your 
choice, and your opinion. You don't, however, represent *everyone's* 
opinion.


> Telling people that they should not think less of those who
> write PERL will not change their minds.

Why not? Through history, progress has been made by those who dared to 
deviate from the status quo. Do you think the United States, for 
example, would even exist if everyone just went-with-the-flow?


> Seeing people who write PERL and who also know something about
> Perl programming might change their minds.

It does happen, it just goes ignored. I can only wonder why...


> Or, conversely, not seeing people who write PERL display a lack
> of Perl programming skill might change that.

Or perhaps they actually read the main document for the language (or saw 
it in any number of online (or offline) sources), and just shortened 
"Practical Extraction and Report Language" to "PERL"...

If you think about it, it really makes perfect sense... where *else* 
would they have picked up writing it that way. Usually people learn by 
example, so they likely had to have seen it *somewhere*. At least that's 
a far better assumption than "clueless moron."


> You cannot affect what people think "by decree".

Why not, it's what you and your fellows are always doing. And please 
don't deny this.


> They will make their own observations, and form their opinions from
> those.

But at the same time, the rest of us have to conform to those 
"observations and opinions" or else?


> If you want folks to stop thinking less of those who write PERL,
> then consider how you might be able to influence what they observe.

So far I've been using simple logic:

Larry Wall said him self that "Perl stands for Practical Extraction and 
Report Language", and as with many other terms, like, for example, "If I 
Recall Correctly", can be shortened and optionally written in upper case 
as "PERL" (just like you can write IIRC, for example.)

Any rational human being has no trouble with this concept. Ironically, 
only you so-called academia types (and I mean no offense by that - I 
generally have great respect for knowledge) can't seem to grasp this 
simple concept. Either you are unable to, or you don't want to, because 
it's inconvenient or for what ever other reason.


--
Gordon C. Etly
Email: perl -e "print q{}.reverse(q{moc.liamg@ylte.nodrog})" 


0
Gordon
7/9/2008 5:02:18 PM
On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 09:44:14 -0700 "Gordon Corbin Etly" <gseesig@gmail.com> wrote: 

GCE> Ted Zlatanov wrote:
>> On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 14:45:33 -0700 "Gordon Corbin Etly"
>> <gvinalcde@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Charlton Wilbur wrote:

>> > > If you write PERL, you are marking yourself as an outsider in the
>> > > eyes of people who are at the core of the Perl community.

>> > I strongly disagree. It shows you are a free thinking individual who
>> > doesn't just conform because they are told to.

>> That would apply to most criminals, most spammers, and the Godzilla
>> troll too.

GCE> That is true, but it's not the case here.

My point is that your statement applies equally, which means that either
the statement doesn't carry a positive meaning and thus doesn't defend
your position, or that you are not saying what you meant to say.

GCE> To me it's wrong to force your beliefs on other people.

Well, you should not live in a society then, or you should modify your
statement, for it surely doesn't say what you meant to say.

>> IMHO, putting "PERL" on your resume is a sure way to disqualify
>> yourself from decent Perl jobs.

GCE> This is just not true. I have been through many kinds of interviews
GCE> over the years, and I have never been disqualified for miss-casing
GCE> the name of a programming language. The end result: it's just not
GCE> that important.

I did say "IMHO" so this is obviously IYHO.  Do you have any Perl
recruiters that will say they won't ding candidates with "PERL"
experience?  I can point to a few, including myself when I've hired
people, that will.  Maybe it does not disqualify altogether, but it's
definitely a big minus and you don't want those on your resume.

>> Similarly, using it in a post is a sure way to annoy people.  You
>> can explain in a footnote that Larry Wall told you it was OK, it
>> won't matter.  It's a social problem, not a technical one.

GCE> But that is not a reason to force a particular view on everyone. Not 
GCE> everyone who is a decent programmer (or "perl hacker") wants to be 
GCE> forced to conform to a particular view. You have to realize this or 
GCE> you're living in a bubble.

Again, it's a social problem and you are twisting it into a individual
vs. society problem.  You can't solve it, and it's not a "view" forced
on anyone.  You may as well solve racism, homophobia, or disabled
parking spaces (again, these are examples, I'm not equating any of them
with your issue).

When the Perl community, and by this I mean a lot of people in many
lists and forums and newsgroups, not just this newsgroup, starts using
"PERL" casually, it's OK to use it in that community.  Until then, it's
not.  Any community has rules, some organic, and this is one of them.

I'm sorry you don't like it, and I wish you luck with using it, since it
honestly doesn't matter to me at all.  In 20 years, I assure you it
won't matter to anyone at all (but RAKUDO might).  I'm just trying to
explain to you, since you're so persistent in advocating your position,
why it's irrelevant to the Perl community and annoying to us who have to
read the same argument over and over.

>> As I mentioned above, "conformity" (or, in its less negative forms,
>> "respect for tradition" and "acceptance of social norms") is not
>> necessarily a bad thing when you're dealing with social problems.

GCE> It's no different then a primary-school kid being outcast for
GCE> simply being different. It's just wrong.

Well, if you created wonderful Perl code, put it on CPAN, or even just
posted here for a few months helping people, I'm sure when you used
"PERL" people wouldn't mind any more than they mind all-lowercase
posters like Uri or other, more eccentric people.  In other words,
tolerance = contributions^2/eccentricity (0 when contributions == 0).
And, of course, weight_of_opinion = contributions^2.

Ted
0
Ted
7/9/2008 6:06:04 PM
Ted Zlatanov wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 09:44:14 -0700 "Gordon Corbin Etly"
> <gseesig@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Ted Zlatanov wrote:
> > > On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 14:45:33 -0700 "Gordon Corbin Etly"
> > > <gvinalcde@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Charlton Wilbur wrote:

> > > > > If you write PERL, you are marking yourself as an outsider in
> > > > > the eyes of people who are at the core of the Perl community.

> > > > I strongly disagree. It shows you are a free thinking individual
> > > > who doesn't just conform because they are told to.

> > > That would apply to most criminals, most spammers, and the 
> > > Godzilla
> > > troll too.

> > That is true, but it's not the case here.

> My point is that your statement applies equally, which means that
> either the statement doesn't carry a positive meaning and thus doesn't
> defend your position, or that you are not saying what you meant to 
> say.

But if you take the context into account, does it not become more clear? 
Meaning, how it's happening in this news group; a view about a certain 
spelling being forced upon people.


> > To me it's wrong to force your beliefs on other people.

> Well, you should not live in a society then, or you should modify your
> statement, for it surely doesn't say what you meant to say.

Ok, if you believe in Judaism, and 20 people who you work with believe 
in Buddhism, and if those 20 people start imposing certain beliefs on 
you, and the other hundreds of people in your place, would you not 
consider this wrong? Should you not be able to walk through that 
particular cubicle cluster without having to conform to their view that 
they are pressuring you to do, despite what you anyone else may believe 
in?

How is this any different than a particular group of people telling 
others that they should not wrote "PERL" when there is no real reason of 
any substance that makes it wrong. Sure they use it as a litmus test to 
see if one follows their "religion", but it's asking someone to write 
"God" by the name you religion calls it, instead of respecting that they 
may want to write it their own way.


> > > IMHO, putting "PERL" on your resume is a sure way to disqualify
> > > yourself from decent Perl jobs.

> > This is just not true. I have been through many kinds of interviews
> > over the years, and I have never been disqualified for miss-casing
> > the name of a programming language. The end result: it's just not
> > that important.

> I did say "IMHO" so this is obviously IYHO.  Do you have any Perl
> recruiters that will say they won't ding candidates with "PERL"
> experience?  I can point to a few, including myself when I've hired
> people, that will.  Maybe it does not disqualify altogether, but it's
> definitely a big minus and you don't want those on your resume.

Why would you ding someone for writing in short hand what Larry Wall 
himself says Perl stands for? This comes down personal preference, 
rather than the competence or how well acquainted someone is with a 
particular community.

Frankly, I find "dinging" someone for what you may consider to be a 
textual error is absurd; what the candidate has to offer, what skills 
they can provide, should be much more important than if they wrote 
"Perl" or "PERL."

Would you also ding someone saying they believe in "Allah", "Jehovah", 
"Ra", "Buddha", etc, when you only believe in "God"?


> > > Similarly, using it in a post is a sure way to annoy people.  You
> > > can explain in a footnote that Larry Wall told you it was OK, it
> > > won't matter.  It's a social problem, not a technical one.

> > But that is not a reason to force a particular view on everyone. Not
> > everyone who is a decent programmer (or "perl hacker") wants to be
> > forced to conform to a particular view. You have to realize this or
> > you're living in a bubble.

> Again, it's a social problem and you are twisting it into a individual
> vs. society problem.  You can't solve it, and it's not a "view" forced
> on anyone.

I really have to disagree. It's been proven that Larry Wall himself gave 
expansions of what Perl stands for, and another way to write that is 
"PERL", yet they refuse to amend the FAQ, and they continue to push 
*their* *view*, that it is wrong, when the facts point the other way. 
Whether it's one person's view, or that of a group of people, it doesn't 
make it right.


--
Gordon C. Etly
Email: perl -e "print q{}.reverse(q{moc.liamg@ylte.nodrog})" 


0
Gordon
7/9/2008 8:30:49 PM
On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 13:30:49 -0700 "Gordon Corbin Etly" <gseesig@gmail.com> wrote: 

GCE> How is this any different than a particular group of people telling
GCE> others that they should not wrote "PERL" when there is no real
GCE> reason of any substance that makes it wrong. Sure they use it as a
GCE> litmus test to see if one follows their "religion", but it's asking
GCE> someone to write "God" by the name you religion calls it, instead
GCE> of respecting that they may want to write it their own way.

Regardless of your opinion, *the community* writes it "Perl"
consistently, and the 3-4 exceptions you've found are irrelevant
compared to the vast number of times it's been written correctly.  I
explained that this is a social problem you will not solve by arguing
and advised you how to deal with it (become respected in the Perl
community, then write it any way you like and maybe you'll change what's
accepted).  No examples will change that fact, and no arguing will help
you.  How can I make it clearer than the equations I spelled out?

Ted
0
Ted
7/9/2008 9:15:20 PM
Gordon Corbin Etly <gseesig@gmail.com> wrote:

> To me it's wrong to force your beliefs on other people.


All of your posts in this thread are attempting to force your
beliefs on other people.

Does your belief include an exception for only yourself?

That is convenient.


-- 
Tad McClellan
email: perl -le "print scalar reverse qq/moc.noitatibaher\100cmdat/"
0
Tad
7/10/2008 1:41:00 AM
Gordon Corbin Etly <gseesig@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tad J McClellan wrote:

>> You cannot affect what people think "by decree".
>
> Why not, 


Because it does not work.

When they see PERL in a clueless post and Perl in clueful posts,
they will know that the decree is inaccurate.


> it's what you and your fellows are always doing. And please 
> don't deny this.


I deny this.


>> If you want folks to stop thinking less of those who write PERL,
>> then consider how you might be able to influence what they observe.
>
> So far I've been using simple logic:


It's been working really well, hasn't it?


> Larry Wall said him self that "Perl stands for Practical Extraction and 
> Report Language", and as with many other terms, like, for example, "If I 
> Recall Correctly", 


I doubt that is was originally written in title case...


> can be shortened and optionally written in upper case 
> as "PERL" (just like you can write IIRC, for example.)


First there was "Perl", 
then there was "Practical Extraction and Report Language".

First there was "If I recall correctly",
then there was "IIRC".

The difference between the two isn't very subtle.


> Any rational human being has no trouble with this concept.


You are right!

Everybody else except you is crazy.

That must be hard on you.


-- 
Tad McClellan
email: perl -le "print scalar reverse qq/moc.noitatibaher\100cmdat/"
0
Tad
7/10/2008 2:01:21 AM
At 2008-07-09 01:02PM, "Gordon Corbin Etly" wrote:
>  So far I've been using simple logic:
>  
>  Larry Wall said him self that "Perl stands for Practical Extraction and 
>  Report Language", and as with many other terms, like, for example, "If I 
>  Recall Correctly", can be shortened and optionally written in upper case 
>  as "PERL" (just like you can write IIRC, for example.)

If I declare your last name stands for "Extremely Tiresome, Lots of
Yammering", will you have to spell it in all upper case henceforth?

-- 
Glenn Jackman
    Write a wise saying and your name will live forever. -- Anonymous
0
Glenn
7/10/2008 2:29:03 AM
Glenn Jackman <glennj@ncf.ca> wrote:
>At 2008-07-09 01:02PM, "Gordon Corbin Etly" wrote:
>>  So far I've been using simple logic:
>>  
>>  Larry Wall said him self that "Perl stands for Practical Extraction and 
>>  Report Language", and as with many other terms, like, for example, "If I 
>>  Recall Correctly", can be shortened and optionally written in upper case 
>>  as "PERL" (just like you can write IIRC, for example.)
>
>If I declare your last name stands for "Extremely Tiresome, Lots of
>Yammering", will you have to spell it in all upper case henceforth?

That is hilarious! You made my day, thanks for this comment!

jue
0
J
7/10/2008 5:06:09 AM
>>>>> "GCE" == Gordon Corbin Etly <gseesig@gmail.com> writes:

    GCE> Ok, if you believe in Judaism, and 20 people who you work with
    GCE> believe in Buddhism, and if those 20 people start imposing
    GCE> certain beliefs on you, and the other hundreds of people in
    GCE> your place, would you not consider this wrong? Should you not
    GCE> be able to walk through that particular cubicle cluster without
    GCE> having to conform to their view that they are pressuring you to
    GCE> do, despite what you anyone else may believe in?

    GCE> How is this any different than a particular group of people
    GCE> telling others that they should not wrote "PERL" when there is
    GCE> no real reason of any substance that makes it wrong.

The spelling of Perl is relevant to the work.

In particular, someone who is asininely stubborn about spelling Perl as
PERL is also likely to have other idiosyncracies that make him difficult
to get along with; perhaps he has a strong preference for 3-space tabs
that will irritate everyone else who works on his text files, or
something else that will make everyone else's life difficult.

    GCE> Why would you ding someone for writing in short hand what Larry
    GCE> Wall himself says Perl stands for?

Because the Perl FAQ says not to do it.  Someone who writes PERL instead
of Perl has either not read the FAQ or believes he knows better than the
FAQ, and both of those are very bad signs in a candidate.

    GCE> I really have to disagree. It's been proven that Larry Wall
    GCE> himself gave expansions of what Perl stands for,

As a joke.

    GCE> and another way to write that is "PERL", yet they refuse to
    GCE> amend the FAQ, and they continue to push *their* *view*, that
    GCE> it is wrong, when the facts point the other way.  Whether it's
    GCE> one person's view, or that of a group of people, it doesn't
    GCE> make it right.

When it's the view of a significant majority, that's enough to get it
into dictionaries. 

Charlton



-- 
Charlton Wilbur
cwilbur@chromatico.net
0
Charlton
7/10/2008 6:13:18 AM
On 2008-07-10, J�rgen Exner <jurgenex@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Glenn Jackman <glennj@ncf.ca> wrote:
>>At 2008-07-09 01:02PM, "Gordon Corbin Etly" wrote:
>>>  So far I've been using simple logic:
>>>  
>>>  Larry Wall said him self that "Perl stands for Practical Extraction and 
>>>  Report Language", and as with many other terms, like, for example, "If I 
>>>  Recall Correctly", can be shortened and optionally written in upper case 
>>>  as "PERL" (just like you can write IIRC, for example.)
>>
>>If I declare your last name stands for "Extremely Tiresome, Lots of
>>Yammering", will you have to spell it in all upper case henceforth?
>
> That is hilarious! You made my day, thanks for this comment!
>
> jue

This thread is Extremely Tiresome.  I thought it had died a month or two
ago.

-- 

0
Jim
7/10/2008 6:17:29 AM
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 08:17:29 +0200 (CEST), Jim Cochrane
<allergic-to-spam@no-spam-allowed.org> wrote:

>On 2008-07-10, J?Exner <jurgenex@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Glenn Jackman <glennj@ncf.ca> wrote:
>>>At 2008-07-09 01:02PM, "Gordon Corbin Etly" wrote:
>>>>  So far I've been using simple logic:
>>>>  
>>>>  Larry Wall said him self that "Perl stands for Practical Extraction and 
>>>>  Report Language", and as with many other terms, like, for example, "If I 
>>>>  Recall Correctly", can be shortened and optionally written in upper case 
>>>>  as "PERL" (just like you can write IIRC, for example.)
>>>
>>>If I declare your last name stands for "Extremely Tiresome, Lots of
>>>Yammering", will you have to spell it in all upper case henceforth?
>>
>> That is hilarious! You made my day, thanks for this comment!
>>
>> jue
>
>This thread is Extremely Tiresome.  I thought it had died a month or two
>ago.

let us now argue about the number of angels that can dance on the point
of a pin
0
pilcrow
7/10/2008 8:53:22 AM
Charlton Wilbur wrote:
> Gordon Corbin Etly wrote:

> > Ok, if you believe in Judaism, and 20 people who you work with
> > believe in Buddhism, and if those 20 people start imposing
> > certain beliefs on you, and the other hundreds of people in
> > your place, would you not consider this wrong? Should you not
> > be able to walk through that particular cubicle cluster without
> > having to conform to their view that they are pressuring you to
> > do, despite what you anyone else may believe in?
> >
> > How is this any different than a particular group of people
> > telling others that they should not wrote "PERL" when there is
> > no real reason of any substance that makes it wrong.

> The spelling of Perl is relevant to the work.

I would say the actual programs created, and the skills of those writing 
them, are far more relevant than what a particular subset of a community 
regards as correct spelling.

> In particular, someone who is asininely stubborn about spelling Perl
> as PERL is also likely to have other idiosyncracies that make him
> difficult to get along with;

Could the same not be said about the "other side", that is also being 
quote stubborn? Why be one-sided about it? And even making the 
connection is a fallacy. Just because someone spells it as "PERL" and 
does so based on the words of Larry Wall, does not make him or her any 
less of potentially competent programmer (or hacker.)


> > Why would you ding someone for writing in short hand what Larry
> > Wall himself says Perl stands for?
>
> Because the Perl FAQ says not to do it.

The FAQ is not gospel and it certainally is not infallible, and it most 
certinally is not a greater authority than Larry WAll himself.


> Someone who writes PERL instead of Perl has either not read the FAQ or 
> believes he knows better than the FAQ,

This is naother fallicious presumption. It could merely mean they have 
chosen to regard the words of Larry Wall higher than a user-writen FAQ.


> and both of those are very bad signs in a candidate.

Do you really believe that?


> > I really have to disagree. It's been proven that Larry Wall
> > himself gave expansions of what Perl stands for,

> As a joke.

Not in the article I posted, it wasn't. It's also in the perldoc in the 
description for 'perl'.


> > and another way to write that is "PERL", yet they refuse to
> > amend the FAQ, and they continue to push *their* *view*, that
> > it is wrong, when the facts point the other way.  Whether it's
> > one person's view, or that of a group of people, it doesn't
> > make it right.

> When it's the view of a significant majority, that's enough to get it
> into dictionaries.

1) Can you please prove that you speak for the *majority* of Perl uers 
or the Perl community?

2) It's already in many reference materials. It's also in perldoc.


Ted Zlatanov wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 13:30:49 -0700 "Gordon Corbin Etly" wrote:

> > How is this any different than a particular group of people telling
> > others that they should not wrote "PERL" when there is no real
> > reason of any substance that makes it wrong. Sure they use it as a
> > litmus test to see if one follows their "religion", but it's asking
> > someone to write "God" by the name you religion calls it, instead
> > of respecting that they may want to write it their own way.

> Regardless of your opinion, *the community* writes it "Perl"
> consistently, and the 3-4 exceptions you've found are irrelevant
> compared to the vast number of times it's been written correctly.

Again, what makes you think that this view, that "PERL" is wrong, really 
reflects the views of the *majority* of the Perl community? What it 
looks like to me, is that it's a certain subset of the community that 
regards themselves as higher than everyone else, that pushes this view. 
I've never seen anyone other than a select few, and really only in this 
news group, pushing this view.

It's in perldoc, it's in an Linux Magazine article where Larry states in 
his own words, and not in a joking manner, that Perl stands mainly for 
"Practical Extraction and Report Language", and none of you can 
definitively tell me (or anyone else reading) why it cannot be 
acceptable to write that as "PERL" for short. Instead, it's the same old 
excuses.


--
Gordon C. Etly
Email: perl -e "print q{}.reverse(q{moc.liamg@ylte.nodrog})" 


0
Gordon
7/10/2008 6:36:46 PM
Tad J McClellan wrote:
> Gordon Corbin Etly <gseesig@gmail.com> wrote:

> > To me it's wrong to force your beliefs on other people.

> All of your posts in this thread are attempting to force your
> beliefs on other people.

The point is about the fact that you people are doing precisely that.


> Does your belief include an exception for only yourself?

Where did this come from? I'm arguing that this taboo-izing of writing 
"PERL" really has no merit. I have not been pushing a belief, nor have I 
made any such exceptions for my self (which you suspiciously don't 
elaborate on.

It has become quote clear that none of you have a rational argument as 
to why you cannot write the words of Larry Wall himself, "Perl not only 
stands for the Practical Extraction and Report Language", as "PERL" for 
short; as to why it has no merit, other than a shared personal distaste 
among a subset of this group's denizens that consider themselves to be 
superior to everyone else and act as if they have a right to dictate how 
we are to think.


--
Gordon C. Etly
Email: perl -e "print q{}.reverse(q{moc.liamg@ylte.nodrog})" 


0
Gordon
7/10/2008 6:45:55 PM
Tad J McClellan wrote:
> Gordon Corbin Etly <gseesig@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Tad J McClellan wrote:

....

> When they see PERL in a clueless post and Perl in clueful posts,
> they will know that the decree is inaccurate.

Please prove this is always the case, and that it changes the words of 
Larry Wall. And that it means you cannot write "PERL" as a short way of 
writing "Practical Extraction and Report Language", which is what he 
said Perl stands for.


> > Larry Wall said him self that "Perl stands for Practical Extraction
> > and Report Language", and as with many other terms, like, for
> > example, "If I Recall Correctly",

> I doubt that is was originally written in title case...

Then please read the article for yourself:

< http://tinyurl.com/6joyuz >
" Perl not only stands for the Practical Extraction and Report
" Language, but it also stands for the Pathologically Eclectic
" Rubbish Lister.

These are Larry Walls own words.


--
Gordon C. Etly
Email: perl -e "print q{}.reverse(q{moc.liamg@ylte.nodrog})" 


0
Gordon
7/10/2008 6:52:43 PM
Glenn Jackman wrote:
> At 2008-07-09 01:02PM, "Gordon Corbin Etly" wrote:
> >  So far I've been using simple logic:

> >  Larry Wall said him self that "Perl stands for Practical Extraction
> >  and Report Language", and as with many other terms, like, for
> >  example, "If I Recall Correctly", can be shortened and optionally
> >  written in upper case as "PERL" (just like you can write IIRC, for
> > example.)

> If I declare your last name stands for "Extremely Tiresome, Lots of
> Yammering", will you have to spell it in all upper case henceforth?

Not necessarily, but it's not unreasonable, nor uncommon, to do so. It's 
really more personal preference. So no only are they pushing a shared 
belief, in some ways it might even be seen as an encroachment on 
personal liberties, but I wouldn't go that far.


--
Gordon C. Etly
Email: perl -e "print q{}.reverse(q{moc.liamg@ylte.nodrog})" 


0
Gordon
7/10/2008 6:55:39 PM
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:55:39 -0700, "Gordon Corbin Etly" <gseemysig@gmail.com> wrote:

>Glenn Jackman wrote:
>> At 2008-07-09 01:02PM, "Gordon Corbin Etly" wrote:
>> >  So far I've been using simple logic:
>
>> >  Larry Wall said him self that "Perl stands for Practical Extraction
>> >  and Report Language", and as with many other terms, like, for
>> >  example, "If I Recall Correctly", can be shortened and optionally
>> >  written in upper case as "PERL" (just like you can write IIRC, for
>> > example.)
>
>> If I declare your last name stands for "Extremely Tiresome, Lots of
>> Yammering", will you have to spell it in all upper case henceforth?
>
Don't take this crap, Jackman's name wasn't passed down as an acronym.
Isin't that right JACKMAN (the name says it all)?

>Not necessarily, but it's not unreasonable, nor uncommon, to do so. It's 
>really more personal preference. So no only are they pushing a shared 
>belief, in some ways it might even be seen as an encroachment on 
>personal liberties, but I wouldn't go that far.

Don't defend against whack men, you don't have too ..
Obviously a slight to you, take it as such!

sln
0
sln
7/10/2008 7:22:16 PM
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:45:55 -0700, "Gordon Corbin Etly" <gseemysig@gmail.com> wrote:

>Tad J McClellan wrote:
>> Gordon Corbin Etly <gseesig@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > To me it's wrong to force your beliefs on other people.
>
>> All of your posts in this thread are attempting to force your
>> beliefs on other people.
>
>The point is about the fact that you people are doing precisely that.
>
>
>> Does your belief include an exception for only yourself?

What a moron! Does he even know what he said, NO !!!
>
>Where did this come from? I'm arguing that this taboo-izing of writing 
>"PERL" really has no merit. I have not been pushing a belief, nor have I 
>made any such exceptions for my self (which you suspiciously don't 
>elaborate on.
>
>It has become quote clear that none of you have a rational argument as 
>to why you cannot write the words of Larry Wall himself, "Perl not only 
>stands for the Practical Extraction and Report Language", as "PERL" for 
>short; as to why it has no merit, other than a shared personal distaste 
>among a subset of this group's denizens that consider themselves to be 
>superior to everyone else and act as if they have a right to dictate how 
>we are to think.

Ignore this troll...

sln
0
sln
7/10/2008 7:24:29 PM
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:52:43 -0700, "Gordon Corbin Etly" <gseemysig@gmail.com> wrote:

>Tad J McClellan wrote:
>> Gordon Corbin Etly <gseesig@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Tad J McClellan wrote:
>
>...
>
>> When they see PERL in a clueless post and Perl in clueful posts,
>> they will know that the decree is inaccurate.
Someone give me a dictionary, I need to look up "clueful".. jeez
>
>Please prove this is always the case, and that it changes the words of 
>Larry Wall. And that it means you cannot write "PERL" as a short way of 
>writing "Practical Extraction and Report Language", which is what he 
>said Perl stands for.
>
>
>> > Larry Wall said him self that "Perl stands for Practical Extraction
>> > and Report Language", and as with many other terms, like, for
>> > example, "If I Recall Correctly",
>
>> I doubt that is was originally written in title case...
DOUBT? What does that stand for?
>
>Then please read the article for yourself:
>
>< http://tinyurl.com/6joyuz >
>" Perl not only stands for the Practical Extraction and Report
>" Language, but it also stands for the Pathologically Eclectic
>" Rubbish Lister.
>
>These are Larry Walls own words.

Please, ignore this troll !

sln
0
sln
7/10/2008 7:27:33 PM
At 2008-07-10 02:52PM, "Gordon Corbin Etly" wrote:
>  Then please read the article for yourself:
>  
> < http://tinyurl.com/6joyuz >
>  " Perl not only stands for the Practical Extraction and Report
>  " Language, but it also stands for the Pathologically Eclectic
>  " Rubbish Lister.
>  
>  These are Larry Walls own words.

Here are some more:

http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/3394

    Eventually I came up with the name "pearl", with the gloss Practical
    Extraction and Report Language. The "a" was still in the name when I
    made that one up. But I heard rumors of some obscure graphics
    language named "pearl", so I shortened it to "perl". (The "a" had
    already disappeared by the time I gave Perl its alternate gloss,
    Pathologically Eclectic Rubbish Lister.)
    ...
    we realized about the time of Perl 4 that it was useful to
    distinguish between "perl" the program and "Perl" the language.

I'm guessing Mr Wall would be rather precise in his writings, so "gloss"
not "acronym" 

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloss
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acronym#Backronyms
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perl#Name

-- 
Glenn Jackman
    Write a wise saying and your name will live forever. -- Anonymous
0
Glenn
7/10/2008 7:51:30 PM
sln@netherlands.com wrote:
>On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:52:43 -0700, "Gordon Corbin Etly" <gseemysig@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
>Please, ignore this troll !

I am trying, man, I am trying. 
Unfortunately he keeps changing his identity every day.

jue
0
J
7/10/2008 11:05:33 PM
J�rgen Exner wrote:
> sln@netherlands.com wrote:
> > On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:52:43 -0700, "Gordon Corbin Etly" wrote:

> I am trying, man, I am trying.

He wasn't saying that to me. Read his posts more carefully. Please don't 
misquote.


> Unfortunately he keeps changing his identity every day.

This is a lie. I have never changed my identity. I have never left any 
question as to who I am. I have always posted with the same first and 
last name, so you always know it was me, and you always have a choice of 
not reading it.


-- 
Gordon C. Etly
Email: perl -e "print q{}.reverse(q{moc.liamg@ylte.nodrog})" 


0
Gordon
7/11/2008 5:22:46 PM
Glenn Jackman wrote:
> At 2008-07-10 02:52PM, "Gordon Corbin Etly" wrote:
> >  Then please read the article for yourself:

> > < http://tinyurl.com/6joyuz >
> >  " Perl not only stands for the Practical Extraction and Report
> >  " Language, but it also stands for the Pathologically Eclectic
> >  " Rubbish Lister.
> >
> >  These are Larry Walls own words.

> Here are some more:
>
> http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/3394
>
>    Eventually I came up with the name "pearl", with the gloss
>    Practical Extraction and Report Language. The "a" was still in the
>    name when I made that one up. But I heard rumors of some obscure
>    graphics language named "pearl", so I shortened it to "perl". (The
>    "a" had already disappeared by the time I gave Perl its alternate
>    gloss, Pathologically Eclectic Rubbish Lister.)
>    ...
>    we realized about the time of Perl 4 that it was useful to
>    distinguish between "perl" the program and "Perl" the language.

How does this negate the validity of "Practical Extraction and Report 
Language" (or even the alternate phrase?) It seems to me that he has 
given a two expansions in two separate articles. Whether it's a "gloss" 
or "not only stands for", or some such, it's a meaning the Larry Wall 
himself gave, and as such, there is nothing wrong with writing that in a 
shortened form. No one, I repeat, NO ONE has given any real reason that 
makes this truly invalid. What you and others keep doing is throwing out 
the same tired excuses of why you don't like it, or trying to pull 
technicalities based on the insignificant wording of a quotation, and 
ignoring what he actually said. Twice. Two separate columns. How many 
more are needed?



-- 
Gordon C. Etly
Email: perl -e "print q{}.reverse(q{moc.liamg@ylte.nodrog})" 


0
Gordon
7/11/2008 5:31:51 PM
On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 10:31:51 -0700, Gordon Corbin Etly wrote:

> Glenn Jackman wrote:
>> At 2008-07-10 02:52PM, "Gordon Corbin Etly" wrote:
>> >  Then please read the article for yourself:
> 
>> > < http://tinyurl.com/6joyuz >
>> >  " Perl not only stands for the Practical Extraction and Report "
>> >  Language, but it also stands for the Pathologically Eclectic "
>> >  Rubbish Lister.
>> >
>> >  These are Larry Walls own words.
> 
>> Here are some more:
>>
>> http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/3394
>>
>>    Eventually I came up with the name "pearl", with the gloss Practical
>>    Extraction and Report Language. The "a" was still in the name when I
>>    made that one up. But I heard rumors of some obscure graphics
>>    language named "pearl", so I shortened it to "perl". (The "a" had
>>    already disappeared by the time I gave Perl its alternate gloss,
>>    Pathologically Eclectic Rubbish Lister.) ...
>>    we realized about the time of Perl 4 that it was useful to
>>    distinguish between "perl" the program and "Perl" the language.
> 
> How does this negate the validity of "Practical Extraction and Report
> Language" (or even the alternate phrase?) It seems to me that he has
> given a two expansions in two separate articles. Whether it's a "gloss"
> or "not only stands for", or some such, it's a meaning the Larry Wall
> himself gave, and as such, there is nothing wrong with writing that in a
> shortened form. No one, I repeat, NO ONE has given any real reason that
> makes this truly invalid. What you and others keep doing is throwing out
> the same tired excuses of why you don't like it, or trying to pull
> technicalities based on the insignificant wording of a quotation, and
> ignoring what he actually said. Twice. Two separate columns. How many
> more are needed?

Are you really that thick, or are you pretending to be?

YOU are quoting Larry out of context. When someone gives that context, 
you completely ignore it.

M4
0
Martijn
7/11/2008 8:34:59 PM
On 2008-07-11, Gordon Corbin Etly <semysig@gmail.com> wrote:
> Glenn Jackman wrote:
>> At 2008-07-10 02:52PM, "Gordon Corbin Etly" wrote:
>> >  Then please read the article for yourself:
>
>> > < http://tinyurl.com/6joyuz >
>> >  " Perl not only stands for the Practical Extraction and Report
>> >  " Language, but it also stands for the Pathologically Eclectic
>> >  " Rubbish Lister.
>> >
>> >  These are Larry Walls own words.
>
>> Here are some more:
>>
>> http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/3394
>>
>>    Eventually I came up with the name "pearl", with the gloss
>>    Practical Extraction and Report Language. The "a" was still in the
>>    name when I made that one up. But I heard rumors of some obscure
>>    graphics language named "pearl", so I shortened it to "perl". (The
>>    "a" had already disappeared by the time I gave Perl its alternate
>>    gloss, Pathologically Eclectic Rubbish Lister.)
>>    ...
>>    we realized about the time of Perl 4 that it was useful to
>>    distinguish between "perl" the program and "Perl" the language.

I thought you wore yourself out on this topic a month or more ago - but
..... no.

Time to add your name to the kill file.


-- 

0
Jim
7/12/2008 1:49:16 AM
Martijn Lievaart wrote:
> Are you really that thick, or are you pretending to be?

There is no question that he is a plain and simple, mentally ill troll 
-- he's filter-proofing himself, which is a sure sign. Just stop responding.
-- 
John W. Kennedy
  "The grand art mastered the thudding hammer of Thor
And the heart of our lord Taliessin determined the war."
   -- Charles Williams.  "Mount Badon"
0
John
7/12/2008 11:50:45 PM
Reply:

Similar Artilces:

FAQ 1.12 What's the difference between "perl" and "Perl"? #22
This is an excerpt from the latest version perlfaq1.pod, which comes with the standard Perl distribution. These postings aim to reduce the number of repeated questions as well as allow the community to review and update the answers. The latest version of the complete perlfaq is at http://faq.perl.org . -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.12: What's the difference between "perl" and "Perl"? One bit. Oh, you weren't talking ASCII? :-) Larry now uses "Perl" to signify the language proper and "perl" the implementation of it, i.e. the current interpreter. Hence Tom's quip that "Nothing but perl can parse Perl." Before the first edition of *Programming perl*, people commonly referred to the language as "perl", and its name appeared that way in the title because it referred to the interpreter. In the book, Randal Schwartz capitalised the language's name to make it stand out better when typeset. This convention was adopted by the community, and the second edition became *Programming Perl*, using the capitalized version of the name to refer to the language. You may or may not choose to follow this usage. For example, parallelism means "awk and perl" and "Python and Perl" look good, while "awk and Perl" and "Python and perl" do not. But never write "PERL", because pe...

FAQ 1.12 What's the difference between "perl" and "Perl"? #9
This is an excerpt from the latest version perlfaq1.pod, which comes with the standard Perl distribution. These postings aim to reduce the number of repeated questions as well as allow the community to review and update the answers. The latest version of the complete perlfaq is at http://faq.perl.org . -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.12: What's the difference between "perl" and "Perl"? One bit. Oh, you weren't talking ASCII? :-) Larry now uses "Perl" to signify the language proper and "perl" the ...

FAQ 1.12 What's the difference between "perl" and "Perl"? #27
This is an excerpt from the latest version perlfaq1.pod, which comes with the standard Perl distribution. These postings aim to reduce the number of repeated questions as well as allow the community to review and update the answers. The latest version of the complete perlfaq is at http://faq.perl.org . -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.12: What's the difference between "perl" and "Perl"? One bit. Oh, you weren't talking ASCII? :-) Larry now uses "Perl" to signify the language proper and "perl" the implementation of it, i.e. the current interpreter. Hence Tom's quip that "Nothing but perl can parse Perl." Before the first edition of *Programming perl*, people commonly referred to the language as "perl", and its name appeared that way in the title because it referred to the interpreter. In the book, Randal Schwartz capitalised the language's name to make it stand out better when typeset. This convention was adopted by the community, and the second edition became *Programming Perl*, using the capitalized version of the name to refer to the language. You may or may not choose to follow this usage. For example, parallelism means "awk and perl" and "Python and Perl" look good, while "awk and Perl" and "Python and perl" do not. But never write "PERL", because pe...

FAQ 1.12 What's the difference between "perl" and "Perl"? 452505
This is an excerpt from the latest version perlfaq1.pod, which comes with the standard Perl distribution. These postings aim to reduce the number of repeated questions as well as allow the community to review and update the answers. The latest version of the complete perlfaq is at http://faq.perl.org . -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.12: What's the difference between "perl" and "Perl"? One bit. Oh, you weren't talking ASCII? :-) Larry now uses "Perl" to signify the language proper and "perl" the ...

FAQ 1.12 What's the difference between "perl" and "Perl"? #24
This is an excerpt from the latest version perlfaq1.pod, which comes with the standard Perl distribution. These postings aim to reduce the number of repeated questions as well as allow the community to review and update the answers. The latest version of the complete perlfaq is at http://faq.perl.org . -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.12: What's the difference between "perl" and "Perl"? One bit. Oh, you weren't talking ASCII? :-) Larry now uses "Perl" to signify the language proper and "perl" the implementation of it, i.e. the current interpreter. Hence Tom's quip that "Nothing but perl can parse Perl." Before the first edition of *Programming perl*, people commonly referred to the language as "perl", and its name appeared that way in the title because it referred to the interpreter. In the book, Randal Schwartz capitalised the language's name to make it stand out better when typeset. This convention was adopted by the community, and the second edition became *Programming Perl*, using the capitalized version of the name to refer to the language. You may or may not choose to follow this usage. For example, parallelism means "awk and perl" and "Python and Perl" look good, while "awk and Perl" and "Python and perl" do not. But never write "PERL", because pe...

FAQ 1.12 What's the difference between "perl" and "Perl"? #16
This is an excerpt from the latest version perlfaq1.pod, which comes with the standard Perl distribution. These postings aim to reduce the number of repeated questions as well as allow the community to review and update the answers. The latest version of the complete perlfaq is at http://faq.perl.org . -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.12: What's the difference between "perl" and "Perl"? One bit. Oh, you weren't talking ASCII? :-) Larry now uses "Perl" to signify the language proper and "perl" the implementation of it, i.e. the current interpreter. Hence Tom's quip that "Nothing but perl can parse Perl." Before the first edition of *Programming perl*, people commonly referred to the language as "perl", and its name appeared that way in the title because it referred to the interpreter. In the book, Randal Schwartz capitalised the language's name to make it stand out better when typeset. This convention was adopted by the community, and the second edition became *Programming Perl*, using the capitalized version of the name to refer to the language. You may or may not choose to follow this usage. For example, parallelism means "awk and perl" and "Python and Perl" look good, while "awk and Perl" and "Python and perl" do not. But never write "PERL", because pe...

FAQ 1.12 What's the difference between "perl" and "Perl"? #10
This is an excerpt from the latest version perlfaq1.pod, which comes with the standard Perl distribution. These postings aim to reduce the number of repeated questions as well as allow the community to review and update the answers. The latest version of the complete perlfaq is at http://faq.perl.org . -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.12: What's the difference between "perl" and "Perl"? One bit. Oh, you weren't talking ASCII? :-) Larry now uses "Perl" to signify the language proper and "perl" the ...

FAQ 1.12 What's the difference between "perl" and "Perl"? #8
This is an excerpt from the latest version perlfaq1.pod, which comes with the standard Perl distribution. These postings aim to reduce the number of repeated questions as well as allow the community to review and update the answers. The latest version of the complete perlfaq is at http://faq.perl.org . -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.12: What's the difference between "perl" and "Perl"? One bit. Oh, you weren't talking ASCII? :-) Larry now uses "Perl" to signify the language proper and "perl" the ...

FAQ 1.12 What's the difference between "perl" and "Perl"? #25
This is an excerpt from the latest version perlfaq1.pod, which comes with the standard Perl distribution. These postings aim to reduce the number of repeated questions as well as allow the community to review and update the answers. The latest version of the complete perlfaq is at http://faq.perl.org . -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.12: What's the difference between "perl" and "Perl"? One bit. Oh, you weren't talking ASCII? :-) Larry now uses "Perl" to signify the language proper and "perl" the implementation of it, i.e. the current interpreter. Hence Tom's quip that "Nothing but perl can parse Perl." Before the first edition of *Programming perl*, people commonly referred to the language as "perl", and its name appeared that way in the title because it referred to the interpreter. In the book, Randal Schwartz capitalised the language's name to make it stand out better when typeset. This convention was adopted by the community, and the second edition became *Programming Perl*, using the capitalized version of the name to refer to the language. You may or may not choose to follow this usage. For example, parallelism means "awk and perl" and "Python and Perl" look good, while "awk and Perl" and "Python and perl" do not. But never write "PERL", because pe...

FAQ 1.12 What's the difference between "perl" and "Perl"? #26
This is an excerpt from the latest version perlfaq1.pod, which comes with the standard Perl distribution. These postings aim to reduce the number of repeated questions as well as allow the community to review and update the answers. The latest version of the complete perlfaq is at http://faq.perl.org . -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.12: What's the difference between "perl" and "Perl"? One bit. Oh, you weren't talking ASCII? :-) Larry now uses "Perl" to signify the language proper and "perl" the implementation of it, i.e. the current interpreter. Hence Tom's quip that "Nothing but perl can parse Perl." Before the first edition of *Programming perl*, people commonly referred to the language as "perl", and its name appeared that way in the title because it referred to the interpreter. In the book, Randal Schwartz capitalised the language's name to make it stand out better when typeset. This convention was adopted by the community, and the second edition became *Programming Perl*, using the capitalized version of the name to refer to the language. You may or may not choose to follow this usage. For example, parallelism means "awk and perl" and "Python and Perl" look good, while "awk and Perl" and "Python and perl" do not. But never write "PERL", because pe...

FAQ 1.12 What's the difference between "perl" and "Perl"? #29
This is an excerpt from the latest version perlfaq1.pod, which comes with the standard Perl distribution. These postings aim to reduce the number of repeated questions as well as allow the community to review and update the answers. The latest version of the complete perlfaq is at http://faq.perl.org . -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.12: What's the difference between "perl" and "Perl"? One bit. Oh, you weren't talking ASCII? :-) Larry now uses "Perl" to signify the language proper and "perl" the implementation of it, i.e. the current interpreter. Hence Tom's quip that "Nothing but perl can parse Perl." Before the first edition of *Programming perl*, people commonly referred to the language as "perl", and its name appeared that way in the title because it referred to the interpreter. In the book, Randal Schwartz capitalised the language's name to make it stand out better when typeset. This convention was adopted by the community, and the second edition became *Programming Perl*, using the capitalized version of the name to refer to the language. You may or may not choose to follow this usage. For example, parallelism means "awk and perl" and "Python and Perl" look good, while "awk and Perl" and "Python and perl" do not. But never write "PERL", because pe...

FAQ 1.12 What's the difference between "perl" and "Perl"? #19
This is an excerpt from the latest version perlfaq1.pod, which comes with the standard Perl distribution. These postings aim to reduce the number of repeated questions as well as allow the community to review and update the answers. The latest version of the complete perlfaq is at http://faq.perl.org . -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.12: What's the difference between "perl" and "Perl"? One bit. Oh, you weren't talking ASCII? :-) Larry now uses "Perl" to signify the language proper and "perl" the implementation of it, i.e. the current interpreter. Hence Tom's quip that "Nothing but perl can parse Perl." Before the first edition of *Programming perl*, people commonly referred to the language as "perl", and its name appeared that way in the title because it referred to the interpreter. In the book, Randal Schwartz capitalised the language's name to make it stand out better when typeset. This convention was adopted by the community, and the second edition became *Programming Perl*, using the capitalized version of the name to refer to the language. You may or may not choose to follow this usage. For example, parallelism means "awk and perl" and "Python and Perl" look good, while "awk and Perl" and "Python and perl" do not. But never write "PERL", because pe...

FAQ 1.12 What's the difference between "perl" and "Perl"? #18
This is an excerpt from the latest version perlfaq1.pod, which comes with the standard Perl distribution. These postings aim to reduce the number of repeated questions as well as allow the community to review and update the answers. The latest version of the complete perlfaq is at http://faq.perl.org . -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.12: What's the difference between "perl" and "Perl"? One bit. Oh, you weren't talking ASCII? :-) Larry now uses "Perl" to signify the language proper and "perl" the implementation of it, i.e. the current interpreter. Hence Tom's quip that "Nothing but perl can parse Perl." Before the first edition of *Programming perl*, people commonly referred to the language as "perl", and its name appeared that way in the title because it referred to the interpreter. In the book, Randal Schwartz capitalised the language's name to make it stand out better when typeset. This convention was adopted by the community, and the second edition became *Programming Perl*, using the capitalized version of the name to refer to the language. You may or may not choose to follow this usage. For example, parallelism means "awk and perl" and "Python and Perl" look good, while "awk and Perl" and "Python and perl" do not. But never write "PERL", because pe...

FAQ 1.12 What's the difference between "perl" and "Perl"? #28
This is an excerpt from the latest version perlfaq1.pod, which comes with the standard Perl distribution. These postings aim to reduce the number of repeated questions as well as allow the community to review and update the answers. The latest version of the complete perlfaq is at http://faq.perl.org . -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.12: What's the difference between "perl" and "Perl"? One bit. Oh, you weren't talking ASCII? :-) Larry now uses "Perl" to signify the language proper and "perl" the implementation of it, i.e. the current interpreter. Hence Tom's quip that "Nothing but perl can parse Perl." Before the first edition of *Programming perl*, people commonly referred to the language as "perl", and its name appeared that way in the title because it referred to the interpreter. In the book, Randal Schwartz capitalised the language's name to make it stand out better when typeset. This convention was adopted by the community, and the second edition became *Programming Perl*, using the capitalized version of the name to refer to the language. You may or may not choose to follow this usage. For example, parallelism means "awk and perl" and "Python and Perl" look good, while "awk and Perl" and "Python and perl" do not. But never write "PERL", because pe...

FAQ 1.12 What's the difference between "perl" and "Perl"? #15
This is an excerpt from the latest version perlfaq1.pod, which comes with the standard Perl distribution. These postings aim to reduce the number of repeated questions as well as allow the community to review and update the answers. The latest version of the complete perlfaq is at http://faq.perl.org . -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.12: What's the difference between "perl" and "Perl"? One bit. Oh, you weren't talking ASCII? :-) Larry now uses "Perl" to signify the language proper and "perl" the implementation of it, i.e. the current interpreter. Hence Tom's quip that "Nothing but perl can parse Perl." Before the first edition of *Programming perl*, people commonly referred to the language as "perl", and its name appeared that way in the title because it referred to the interpreter. In the book, Randal Schwartz capitalised the language's name to make it stand out better when typeset. This convention was adopted by the community, and the second edition became *Programming Perl*, using the capitalized version of the name to refer to the language. You may or may not choose to follow this usage. For example, parallelism means "awk and perl" and "Python and Perl" look good, while "awk and Perl" and "Python and perl" do not. But never write "PERL", because pe...

FAQ 1.12 What's the difference between "perl" and "Perl"? #21
This is an excerpt from the latest version perlfaq1.pod, which comes with the standard Perl distribution. These postings aim to reduce the number of repeated questions as well as allow the community to review and update the answers. The latest version of the complete perlfaq is at http://faq.perl.org . -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.12: What's the difference between "perl" and "Perl"? One bit. Oh, you weren't talking ASCII? :-) Larry now uses "Perl" to signify the language proper and "perl" the implementation of it, i.e. the current interpreter. Hence Tom's quip that "Nothing but perl can parse Perl." Before the first edition of *Programming perl*, people commonly referred to the language as "perl", and its name appeared that way in the title because it referred to the interpreter. In the book, Randal Schwartz capitalised the language's name to make it stand out better when typeset. This convention was adopted by the community, and the second edition became *Programming Perl*, using the capitalized version of the name to refer to the language. You may or may not choose to follow this usage. For example, parallelism means "awk and perl" and "Python and Perl" look good, while "awk and Perl" and "Python and perl" do not. But never write "PERL", because pe...

FAQ 1.12 What's the difference between "perl" and "Perl"? #6
This is an excerpt from the latest version perlfaq1.pod, which comes with the standard Perl distribution. These postings aim to reduce the number of repeated questions as well as allow the community to review and update the answers. The latest version of the complete perlfaq is at http://faq.perl.org . -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.12: What's the difference between "perl" and "Perl"? One bit. Oh, you weren't talking ASCII? :-) Larry now uses "Perl" to signify the language proper and "perl" the ...

FAQ 1.12 What's the difference between "perl" and "Perl"? #20
This is an excerpt from the latest version perlfaq1.pod, which comes with the standard Perl distribution. These postings aim to reduce the number of repeated questions as well as allow the community to review and update the answers. The latest version of the complete perlfaq is at http://faq.perl.org . -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.12: What's the difference between "perl" and "Perl"? One bit. Oh, you weren't talking ASCII? :-) Larry now uses "Perl" to signify the language proper and "perl" the implementation of it, i.e. the current interpreter. Hence Tom's quip that "Nothing but perl can parse Perl." Before the first edition of *Programming perl*, people commonly referred to the language as "perl", and its name appeared that way in the title because it referred to the interpreter. In the book, Randal Schwartz capitalised the language's name to make it stand out better when typeset. This convention was adopted by the community, and the second edition became *Programming Perl*, using the capitalized version of the name to refer to the language. You may or may not choose to follow this usage. For example, parallelism means "awk and perl" and "Python and Perl" look good, while "awk and Perl" and "Python and perl" do not. But never write "PERL", because pe...

FAQ 1.12 What's the difference between "perl" and "Perl"? 217727
This is an excerpt from the latest version perlfaq1.pod, which comes with the standard Perl distribution. These postings aim to reduce the number of repeated questions as well as allow the community to review and update the answers. The latest version of the complete perlfaq is at http://faq.perl.org . -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.12: What's the difference between "perl" and "Perl"? One bit. Oh, you weren't talking ASCII? :-) Larry now uses "Perl" to signify the language proper and "perl...

FAQ 1.12 What's the difference between "perl" and "Perl"? #23
This is an excerpt from the latest version perlfaq1.pod, which comes with the standard Perl distribution. These postings aim to reduce the number of repeated questions as well as allow the community to review and update the answers. The latest version of the complete perlfaq is at http://faq.perl.org . -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.12: What's the difference between "perl" and "Perl"? One bit. Oh, you weren't talking ASCII? :-) Larry now uses "Perl" to signify the language proper and "perl" the implementation of it, i.e. the current interpreter. Hence Tom's quip that "Nothing but perl can parse Perl." Before the first edition of *Programming perl*, people commonly referred to the language as "perl", and its name appeared that way in the title because it referred to the interpreter. In the book, Randal Schwartz capitalised the language's name to make it stand out better when typeset. This convention was adopted by the community, and the second edition became *Programming Perl*, using the capitalized version of the name to refer to the language. You may or may not choose to follow this usage. For example, parallelism means "awk and perl" and "Python and Perl" look good, while "awk and Perl" and "Python and perl" do not. But never write "PERL", because pe...

FAQ 1.12 What's the difference between "perl" and "Perl"? #7
This is an excerpt from the latest version perlfaq1.pod, which comes with the standard Perl distribution. These postings aim to reduce the number of repeated questions as well as allow the community to review and update the answers. The latest version of the complete perlfaq is at http://faq.perl.org . -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.12: What's the difference between "perl" and "Perl"? One bit. Oh, you weren't talking ASCII? :-) Larry now uses "Perl" to signify the language proper and "perl" the ...

FAQ 1.12 What's the difference between "perl" and "Perl"? #2 298657
This is an excerpt from the latest version perlfaq1.pod, which comes with the standard Perl distribution. These postings aim to reduce the number of repeated questions as well as allow the community to review and update the answers. The latest version of the complete perlfaq is at http://faq.perl.org . -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.12: What's the difference between "perl" and "Perl"? One bit. Oh, you weren't talking ASCII? :-) Larry now uses "Perl" to signify the language proper and "perl...

FAQ 1.12 What's the difference between "perl" and "Perl"? #3 331158
This message is one of several periodic postings to comp.lang.perl.misc intended to make it easier for perl programmers to find answers to common questions. The core of this message represents an excerpt from the documentation provided with Perl. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.12: What's the difference between "perl" and "Perl"? One bit. Oh, you weren't talking ASCII? :-) Larry now uses "Perl" to signify the language proper and "perl" the implementation of it, i.e. the current interpreter. He...

FAQ 1.12 What's the difference between "perl" and "Perl"? #3 444257
This is an excerpt from the latest version perlfaq1.pod, which comes with the standard Perl distribution. These postings aim to reduce the number of repeated questions as well as allow the community to review and update the answers. The latest version of the complete perlfaq is at http://faq.perl.org . -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.12: What's the difference between "perl" and "Perl"? One bit. Oh, you weren't talking ASCII? :-) Larry now uses "Perl" to signify the language proper and "perl...

Web resources about - FAQ 1.12 What's the difference between "perl" and "Perl"? #17 - comp.lang.perl.misc

Resources last updated: 3/29/2016 6:47:48 AM