f



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

John W Kennedy wrote:
> Martijn Lievaart wrote:

> > 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.

I didn't ignore it. What you and others have completely ignored is this:

Why do many people write "TIMTOWTDI", instead of "There is more than one 
way to do it"? Maybe it's because it's just more convenient to write it 
that way. Maybe it's a personal preference to write it that way. It 
saves time when typing.

So why then is it in any way wrong to write "PERL", instead of writing 
"Practical extraction and report language"?

None of you have countered this, but instead, I keep seeing the same 
excuses, that it is some social issue, or that you consider someone who 
writes that to be ignorant or incompetent, or that it was some joke. In 
fact, someone using it in the manner I have described is someone who has 
read of Larry, who is just writing in a form that *they* prefer, because 
they are not a mindless sheep - who are you or I or anyone to dictate 
personal preferences?

This forcing of a belief is little more than a "do this and that or you 
can't join our club" mentality.



> -- he's filter-proofing himself, which is a sure sign. Just stop
> responding. --

This is untrue. If you filter by /Gordon\s+(?:C(?:.|orbin)?\s+)Etly/, 
which covers all the ways I have written my name. If you really wanted 
to killfile me, you could of easily done it long ago, so please stop 
pushing falsehoods in order to make it appear you're on some moral high 
ground.


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


0
Gordon
7/13/2008 5:57:57 AM
comp.lang.perl.misc 33233 articles. 2 followers. brian (1246) is leader. Post Follow

25 Replies
724 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 59

Gordon Corbin Etly wrote:
) Why do many people write "TIMTOWTDI", instead of "There is more than one 
) way to do it"? Maybe it's because it's just more convenient to write it 
) that way. Maybe it's a personal preference to write it that way. It 
) saves time when typing.
)
) So why then is it in any way wrong to write "PERL", instead of writing 
) "Practical extraction and report language"?

Because 'Practical extraction and report language' is not the name
of the language.


SaSW, Willem
-- 
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
            made in the above text. For all I know I might be
            drugged or something..
            No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT
0
Willem
7/13/2008 9:17:14 AM
At 2008-07-13 01:57AM, "Gordon Corbin Etly" wrote:
>  Why do many people write "TIMTOWTDI", instead of "There is more than one 
>  way to do it"? Maybe it's because it's just more convenient to write it 
>  that way. Maybe it's a personal preference to write it that way. It 
>  saves time when typing.
>  
>  So why then is it in any way wrong to write "PERL", instead of writing 
>  "Practical extraction and report language"?

You missed Tad's post where he said:

    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. 


-- 
Glenn Jackman
    Write a wise saying and your name will live forever. -- Anonymous
0
Glenn
7/13/2008 12:17:07 PM
Willem wrote:
> Gordon Corbin Etly wrote:

> > Why do many people write "TIMTOWTDI", instead of "There is more
> > than one way to do it"? Maybe it's because it's just more
> > convenient to write it that way. Maybe it's a personal preference
> > to write it that way. It saves time when typing.
> >
> > So why then is it in any way wrong to write "PERL", instead of
> > writing "Practical extraction and report language"?
>
> Because 'Practical extraction and report language' is not the name
> of the language.


Glenn Jackman wrote:

> You missed Tad's post where he said:
>
>    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.

Well, actually no, on all counts. The point that I made regarding all 
this, was that one can write "IIRC", "iirc", or even "Iirc", depending 
on your preference. It is no different than writing "Perl", "perl", or 
"PERL", if the intended meaning is "Practical Extraction and Report 
Language", "Practical extraction and report language", etc, for example. 
Willem, you are right, that that (or the other known expansion) is not 
the name, but no one ever said it was. It is a description and a known 
alternate meaning.

The core point of all this is that the level of attention paid to 
whether or not some someone correctly cased "Perl" is purely absurd.


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


0
Gordon
7/14/2008 6:17:23 AM
On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 22:57:57 -0700 "Gordon Corbin Etly" <seysig@gmail.com> wrote: 

GCE> So why then is it in any way wrong to write "PERL", instead of
GCE> writing "Practical extraction and report language"?

At this point, because you advocate it endlessly, we're all sick of
hearing about it, and you still have not produced anything of value in
this community to make us listen to you.  As the saying goes, "a fanatic
is someone who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."

At least you're consistent over the last few months.  A man of
conviction and firm opinion, for sure.  Too bad you can't apply it to
your posting address, so I had to setup a -1000 score regular expression
just for you.

Ted
0
Ted
7/14/2008 2:38:39 PM
Ted Zlatanov wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 22:57:57 -0700 "Gordon Corbin Etly" wrote:

> > So why then is it in any way wrong to write "PERL", instead of
> > writing "Practical extraction and report language"?

> At this point, because you advocate it endlessly, we're all sick of
> hearing about it,

Has it ever occurred to you that some people are sick of hearing "don't 
write 'PERL'"? Has it ever occurred to you that that view may not be 
right, that that possibility exists? All I ever tried to do was engage 
in a civil debate about it, but unfortunately, there those who refuse to 
argue with fact and prefer to spin and even sling mud instead, rather 
provide a true explanation of why it's wrong.


> As the saying goes, "a fanatic is someone who can't change his mind

I have no issue conceding a point when given a solid refutation, but 
this has not been the case. So far, every attempt to refute my claim has 
fallen apart and I suspect there are those who are  unwilling to admit 
they are in fact wrong, so I put forth that it is not I who is unable to 
change their mind when presented with the facts.


> and won't change the subject."

I'm not sure what you mean here. The subject matter of this thread -is- 
about the naming of Perl. In other threads it's no different. I stick to 
the central topic, or that set by a tangent. Why are you writing 
misleading statements like this? Is it perhaps that some of you have 
become so desperate for your belief that you have to be dishonest?


> At least you're consistent over the last few months.  A man of
> conviction and firm opinion, for sure.  Too bad you can't apply it to
> your posting address

I have not changed it _that_ much, but it is anyone's choice to do so. 
And I have also explained that all you need to do is block on the name 
portion as I have never altered that, other than to add my middle name. 
This can even be done without a regex.


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


0
Gordon
7/15/2008 4:59:54 PM
>>>>> "GCE" == Gordon Corbin Etly <et@gmail.com> writes:

  GCE> Ted Zlatanov wrote:
  >> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 22:57:57 -0700 "Gordon Corbin Etly" wrote:

  >> > So why then is it in any way wrong to write "PERL", instead of
  >> > writing "Practical extraction and report language"?

  >> At this point, because you advocate it endlessly, we're all sick of
  >> hearing about it,

  GCE> Has it ever occurred to you that some people are sick of hearing "don't 
  GCE> write 'PERL'"? Has it ever occurred to you that that view may not be 
  GCE> right, that that possibility exists? All I ever tried to do was engage 
  GCE> in a civil debate about it, but unfortunately, there those who refuse to 
  GCE> argue with fact and prefer to spin and even sling mud instead, rather 
  GCE> provide a true explanation of why it's wrong.

nah, we are just sick of you. and in the larger perl community which you
don't seem to care about, this does matter. go to a yapc or oscon and
say PERL all the time. look at the faces of those who think you are not
a worthy perl hacker. 

uri

-- 
Uri Guttman  ------  uri@stemsystems.com  --------  http://www.sysarch.com --
-----  Perl Code Review , Architecture, Development, Training, Support ------
--------- Free Perl Training --- http://perlhunter.com/college.html ---------
---------  Gourmet Hot Cocoa Mix  ----  http://bestfriendscocoa.com ---------
0
Uri
7/15/2008 5:19:35 PM
Uri Guttman wrote:
> go to a yapc or oscon and say PERL all the time. look at the faces of 
> those who think you are not a worthy perl hacker.

I guess that few would notice. Or is it a pronouncing matter besides the 
spelling matter? ;-)

-- 
Gunnar Hjalmarsson
Email: http://www.gunnar.cc/cgi-bin/contact.pl
0
Gunnar
7/15/2008 5:56:02 PM
Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote:
> Uri Guttman wrote:
>> go to a yapc or oscon and say PERL all the time. look at the faces of 
>> those who think you are not a worthy perl hacker.
> 
> I guess that few would notice. Or is it a pronouncing matter besides the 
> spelling matter? ;-)
> 

You have to shout.

-- 
Brad
0
Brad
7/15/2008 6:19:22 PM
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 09:59:54 -0700 "Gordon Corbin Etly" <et@gmail.com> wrote: 

GCE> All I ever tried to do was engage in a civil debate about it, but
GCE> unfortunately, there those who refuse to argue with fact and prefer
GCE> to spin and even sling mud instead, rather provide a true
GCE> explanation of why it's wrong.

You've been civil, polite, and firmly entrenched in your opinion.
Arguing with you is like arm-wrestling a coconut.

Ted
0
Ted
7/15/2008 9:32:01 PM
Uri Guttman wrote:
>>>>>> "GCE" == Gordon Corbin Etly <et@gmail.com> writes:
> > Ted Zlatanov wrote:
> > > On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 22:57:57 -0700 "Gordon Corbin Etly" wrote:

> > > > So why then is it in any way wrong to write "PERL", instead of
> > > > writing "Practical extraction and report language"?

> > > At this point, because you advocate it endlessly, we're all sick
> > > of hearing about it,
>
> > Has it ever occurred to you that some people are sick of hearing
> > "don't write 'PERL'"? Has it ever occurred to you that that view may
> > not be right, that that possibility exists? All I ever tried to do
> > was engage in a civil debate about it, but unfortunately, there
> > those who refuse to argue with fact and prefer to spin and even
> > sling mud instead, rather provide a true explanation of why it's
> > wrong.

> nah, we are just sick of you. and in the larger perl community which
> you don't seem to care about,

I care very much for this community and I hate what people like you 
continue to do to it by attempting to force people into one belief.


> go to a yapc or oscon and say PERL all the time

Would you care to explain how, in oral speech, one would distinguish 
that?


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


0
Gordon
7/15/2008 11:26:49 PM
Brad Baxter wrote:
> Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote:
> > Uri Guttman wrote:

> > > go to a yapc or oscon and say PERL all the time. look at the faces
> > > of those who think you are not a worthy perl hacker.

> > I guess that few would notice. Or is it a pronouncing matter besides
> > the spelling matter? ;-)

> You have to shout.

One need not shout words which are short for longer meaning, but in 
general, that's not done in oral speech anyways.


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


0
Gordon
7/15/2008 11:30:02 PM
Ted Zlatanov wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 09:59:54 -0700 "Gordon Corbin Etly"
> <et@gmail.com> wrote:

> > All I ever tried to do was engage in a civil debate about it, but
> > unfortunately, there those who refuse to argue with fact and prefer
> > to spin and even sling mud instead, rather provide a true
> > explanation of why it's wrong.

> You've been civil, polite, and firmly entrenched in your opinion.

I see no reason not to be polite, therefore I am :)


> Arguing with you is like arm-wrestling a coconut.


Let me ask you something: if you are "arguing" with people who ignore 
facts, who only provide excuses with little to no substance, which do 
not disprove your central argument, and at the same time, refuse to see 
reason, refuse to even acknowledge that there is some validity, what 
would you do? Would you just feel it's right for people to push a 
belief, that can easily be disproved, on others, or would you prefer to 
allow people to freedom to express their own preferences?


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


0
Gordon
7/15/2008 11:37:10 PM
Gordon Corbin Etly wrote:
> Brad Baxter wrote:
>> Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote:
>>> Uri Guttman wrote:
> 
>>>> go to a yapc or oscon and say PERL all the time. look at the faces
>>>> of those who think you are not a worthy perl hacker.
> 
>>> I guess that few would notice. Or is it a pronouncing matter besides
>>> the spelling matter? ;-)
> 
>> You have to shout.
> 
> One need not shout words which are short for longer meaning, but in 
> general, that's not done in oral speech anyways.

I would rather proactively deliver impactful human capital.

-- 
Brad

0
Brad
7/15/2008 11:51:38 PM
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 16:37:10 -0700 "Gordon Corbin Etly" <ly@gmail.com> wrote: 

GCE> Let me ask you something: if you are "arguing" with people who ignore 
GCE> facts, who only provide excuses with little to no substance, which do 
GCE> not disprove your central argument, and at the same time, refuse to see 
GCE> reason, refuse to even acknowledge that there is some validity, what 
GCE> would you do?

Well, in your case I tried to explain twice and then gave up.

GCE> Would you just feel it's right for people to push a belief, that
GCE> can easily be disproved, on others, or would you prefer to allow
GCE> people to freedom to express their own preferences?

Those two are not in conflict so it's not an A or B choice.  I believe
in freedom of speech, so both of them are OK by me.

Ted
0
Ted
7/16/2008 1:01:55 PM
Ted Zlatanov wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 16:37:10 -0700 "Gordon Corbin Etly" wrote:

> > Let me ask you something: if you are "arguing" with people who 
> > ignore
> > facts, who only provide excuses with little to no substance, which 
> > do
> > not disprove your central argument, and at the same time, refuse to
> > see reason, refuse to even acknowledge that there is some validity,
> > what would you do?

> Well, in your case I tried to explain twice and then gave up.

You at least tried to form a coherent argument, but you failed to prove 
why it shouldn't be acceptable to write "PERL" just like you can 
compress other meanings and expansions. I do commend you on your 
attempts, however.


> > Would you just feel it's right for people to push a belief, that
> > can easily be disproved, on others, or would you prefer to allow
> > people to freedom to express their own preferences?

> Those two are not in conflict so it's not an A or B choice.  I believe
> in freedom of speech, so both of them are OK by me.

Then why suppose this notion that people typing "PERL" is some how 
inferior. It is little more than a stereotype, and there are several 
people that push this and essentially tell the person they are replying 
that "this is how to write it, conform or else". It's this which I 
believe is just wrong. I have no problems _what_ _so_ _ever_ with 
correcting people who are doing something wrong. However, typing "PERL" 
is not a mistake in and of itself; it's a perfectly valid compression 
and telling random people it is wrong is misleading at best, deceptive 
at worst.


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


0
Gordon
7/16/2008 4:17:40 PM
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 09:17:40 -0700 "Gordon Corbin Etly" <cor@gmail.com> wrote: 

GCE> You at least tried to form a coherent argument, but you failed to prove 
GCE> why it shouldn't be acceptable to write "PERL" just like you can 
GCE> compress other meanings and expansions. 

Right, nor do I care to prove it.  It's irrelevant, as I've explained.
Please look up "shibboleth."

Ted
0
Ted
7/16/2008 5:10:00 PM
>>>>> "GCE" == Gordon Corbin Etly <cor@gmail.com> writes:

    GCE> Then why suppose this notion that people typing "PERL" is some
    GCE> how inferior. It is little more than a stereotype, and there
    GCE> are several people that push this and essentially tell the
    GCE> person they are replying that "this is how to write it, conform
    GCE> or else". It's this which I believe is just wrong. I have no
    GCE> problems _what_ _so_ _ever_ with correcting people who are
    GCE> doing something wrong. However, typing "PERL" is not a mistake
    GCE> in and of itself; it's a perfectly valid compression and
    GCE> telling random people it is wrong is misleading at best,
    GCE> deceptive at worst.

I'm not telling you it's *wrong*, for the record.

I'm telling you that using it makes you look like someone who's
inexperienced with Perl, like someone who's never read the FAQ, or who's
too stubborn to conform to common usage. 

These are the three reasons that people commonly use PERL.
Inexperience, ignorance, intransigence.

You may be a brilliant programmer, the best software developer ever, but
if you use PERL on a resume, in a cover letter, or in an online forum,
the safe bet is that you're one of the three.  It's not worth wasting
time to figure out that you're just a free thinker.

Charlton



-- 
Charlton Wilbur
cwilbur@chromatico.net
0
Charlton
7/16/2008 5:51:59 PM
Ted Zlatanov wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 09:17:40 -0700 "Gordon Corbin Etly" wrote:

> > You at least tried to form a coherent argument, but you failed to
> > prove why it shouldn't be acceptable to write "PERL" just like you
> > can compress other meanings and expansions.

> Right, nor do I care to prove it. It's irrelevant, as I've explained.

Then you concede that this view against "PERL" is indeed a weak on? If 
is wasn't, then there shouldn't be any problem proving it.


> Please look up "shibboleth."

I am quite familiar with the term. Here is the jist of it:

[ http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=shibboleth ]
" a peculiarity of pronunciation, behavior, mode of dress, etc.,
" that distinguishes a particular class or set of persons


But to use something as a shibboleth (as a say to distinguish "a 
particular class or set of persons") is a very poor measuring stick. 
It's akin to database queries for a table without unique keys. This is 
the point I'm stressing.


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


0
Gordon
7/16/2008 9:10:30 PM
Ted Zlatanov wrote:

> Please look up "shibboleth."


shibboleth:
[ http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=shibboleth ]
" 3. a common saying or belief with little current
"    meaning or truth.


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


0
Gordon
7/16/2008 9:19:35 PM
Charlton Wilbur wrote:
>>>>>> "GCE" == Gordon Corbin Etly <cor@gmail.com> writes:

> > Then why suppose this notion that people typing "PERL" is some
> > how inferior. It is little more than a stereotype, and there
> > are several people that push this and essentially tell the
> > person they are replying that "this is how to write it, conform
> > or else". It's this which I believe is just wrong. I have no
> > problems _what_ _so_ _ever_ with correcting people who are
> > doing something wrong. However, typing "PERL" is not a mistake
> > in and of itself; it's a perfectly valid compression and
> > telling random people it is wrong is misleading at best,
> > deceptive at worst.

> I'm not telling you it's *wrong*, for the record.

Fair enough.


> I'm telling you that using it makes you look like someone who's
> inexperienced with Perl,

But, *why*? What *real* connection is there between writing "PERL" and 
being inexperienced? This to me is like writing "SELECT person FROM 
people WHERE person.intelligence < 3 AND person.hasWrittenPERL = 1;" I 
would consider that a poor way to formulate such a statement, as it's 
based entirely on an assumption that is easily wrong (that one cannot be 
intelligent and freethinking and choose to write "Perl" however they 
wish.


> like someone who's never read the FAQ, or

Why is it, again and again, you people seem to mistake the purpose of an 
FAQ; they exist to be guidelines. They were never intended to be 
regarded as a biblical document.


> who's too stubborn to conform to common usage.

IMHO, it takes a strong mind to realize you don't have to conform to 
every single thing a pseudo society says is right or wrong. Those who do 
a little more than sheep.


> These are the three reasons that people commonly use PERL.
> Inexperience, ignorance, intransigence.

This is nothing short of a stereotype. This is no different than saying 
all Mexican's are lazy, wear huge hats, and eat nothing but tacos and 
burritos.


> You may be a brilliant programmer, the best software developer ever,
> but if you use PERL on a resume, in a cover letter, or in an online
> forum, the safe bet is that you're one of the three.  It's not worth
> wasting time to figure out that you're just a free thinker.

shibboleth:
[ http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=shibboleth ]
" 3. a common saying or belief with little
"    current meaning or truth.


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


0
Gordon
7/16/2008 9:19:41 PM
>>>>> "GCE" == Gordon Corbin Etly <jdhog@gmail.com> writes:

    GCE> Charlton Wilbur wrote:

    >> I'm telling you that using it makes you look like someone who's
    >> inexperienced with Perl,

    GCE> But, *why*? What *real* connection is there between writing
    GCE> "PERL" and being inexperienced? 

People who are inexperienced do it with great frequency.  Pay attention
and see.  It's a clear correlation to just about anyone who's ever had
to hire a Perl programmer.

    >> like someone who's never read the FAQ, or

    GCE> Why is it, again and again, you people seem to mistake the
    GCE> purpose of an FAQ; they exist to be guidelines. They were never
    GCE> intended to be regarded as a biblical document.

Except when they prove the point you want to make -- you've cited the
FAQ several times in support of your idée fixe.

A programmer who's never read the FAQ is unlikely to be a very good
one.  A programmer who's read the FAQ and is *sure* he knows better is
also unlikely to be a very good one.  And a programmer who reads the
FAQ, encounters the advice on never writing PERL, and makes up a
spurious justification for doing so -- he's likely to be a stubbornly
untraininable halfwit, at least on the evidence so far provided.

    >> who's too stubborn to conform to common usage.

    GCE> IMHO, it takes a strong mind to realize you don't have to
    GCE> conform to every single thing a pseudo society says is right or
    GCE> wrong. Those who do a little more than sheep.

And it takes an intelligent mind to figure out where it's important to
take a stand and where it's a pointless waste of effort.  Being stubborn
about foolish things is no benefit.

    >> These are the three reasons that people commonly use PERL.
    >> Inexperience, ignorance, intransigence.

    GCE> This is nothing short of a stereotype.

Find me an instance of someone using PERL that can't be ascribed to one
of the the three.  For the record, your usage is solidly in the third
category.

Charlton




-- 
Charlton Wilbur
cwilbur@chromatico.net
0
Charlton
7/17/2008 12:39:36 PM
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:10:30 -0700 "Gordon Corbin Etly" <etc@gmail.com> wrote: 

GCE> Ted Zlatanov wrote:
>> Right, nor do I care to prove it. It's irrelevant, as I've explained.

GCE> Then you concede that this view against "PERL" is indeed a weak on? If 
GCE> is wasn't, then there shouldn't be any problem proving it.

I previously mentioned that debating this point with you is like
arm-wrestling a coconut; you can choose to interpret that comment in
several ways and that's intentional.  I just don't want to argue to
point with you, so please stop inferring the validity of your position
from that.

GCE> [ http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=shibboleth ]
GCE> " a peculiarity of pronunciation, behavior, mode of dress, etc.,
GCE> " that distinguishes a particular class or set of persons

GCE> But to use something as a shibboleth (as a say to distinguish "a 
GCE> particular class or set of persons") is a very poor measuring stick. 
GCE> It's akin to database queries for a table without unique keys. This is 
GCE> the point I'm stressing.

Your analogy is poor, but I know what you're trying to say and it's
irrelevant because (again) you are applying technical criteria to a
social problem.  Understand that the shibboleth is a social qualifier,
not a technical one.  Social qualifiers are organic and only have
meaning within the society that uses them.  They may be technically
valid or not, and they may be logically consistent or not, but all of
that is irrelevant.

Ted
0
Ted
7/17/2008 2:23:59 PM
Lovingly paraphrased from ST:TNG, Season 2 Ep 1 - "The Child"

Cast:

Dr. Kate Pulaski as... GCE
Lt. Cmdr. Data as..... Perl

GCE  : PERL, look at this.
Perl : Perl.
GCE  : What?
Perl : My name. It is spelled "Perl".
GCE  : Oh?
Perl : You called me PERL.
GCE  : [laughing] What's the difference?
Perl : One is my name. The other is not.

From the mouths of androids. ;)
0
meraxes
7/17/2008 3:17:48 PM
Charlton Wilbur wrote:
>>>>>> "GCE" == Gordon Corbin Etly <cor@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>     GCE> Then why suppose this notion that people typing "PERL" is some
>     GCE> how inferior. It is little more than a stereotype, and there
>     GCE> are several people that push this and essentially tell the
>     GCE> person they are replying that "this is how to write it, conform
>     GCE> or else". It's this which I believe is just wrong. I have no
>     GCE> problems _what_ _so_ _ever_ with correcting people who are
>     GCE> doing something wrong. However, typing "PERL" is not a mistake
>     GCE> in and of itself; it's a perfectly valid compression and
>     GCE> telling random people it is wrong is misleading at best,
>     GCE> deceptive at worst.
> 
> I'm not telling you it's *wrong*, for the record.
> 
> I'm telling you that using it makes you look like someone who's
> inexperienced with Perl, like someone who's never read the FAQ, or who's
> too stubborn to conform to common usage. 
> 
> These are the three reasons that people commonly use PERL.
> Inexperience, ignorance, intransigence.
> 
> You may be a brilliant programmer, the best software developer ever, but
> if you use PERL on a resume, in a cover letter, or in an online forum,
> the safe bet is that you're one of the three.  It's not worth wasting
> time to figure out that you're just a free thinker.

For God's sake! He is provably nothing but a common, vulgar troll. Stop 
responding to him.
-- 
John W. Kennedy
  "Never try to take over the international economy based on a radical 
feminist agenda if you're not sure your leader isn't a transvestite."
   -- David Misch:  "She-Spies", "While You Were Out"
0
John
7/17/2008 8:11:10 PM
Charlton Wilbur wrote:
>>>>>> "GCE" == Gordon Corbin Etly <jdhog@gmail.com> writes:
> > Charlton Wilbur wrote:

> > > I'm telling you that using it makes you look like someone who's
> > > inexperienced with Perl,

> > But, *why*? What *real* connection is there between writing
> > "PERL" and being inexperienced?
>
> People who are inexperienced do it with great frequency.  Pay
> attention and see.  It's a clear correlation to just about anyone
> who's ever had to hire a Perl programmer.

You're making the same classic mistake. You're assuming anyone who uses 
it isn't using it in the manner I've outlined countless times already.


> > > like someone who's never read the FAQ, or

Again, another assumption that is, well, just an assumption. You don't 
know if they've read it or not, or if they have, chose to go by the 
first page of Perldoc and write it in all caps, because maybe it's just 
their personal preference and they've never been yelled at for doing the 
same in a Java, C, COBOL, or many other technical groups.


> > Why is it, again and again, you people seem to mistake the
> > purpose of an FAQ; they exist to be guidelines. They were never
> > intended to be regarded as a biblical document.

> Except when they prove the point you want to make -- you've cited the
> FAQ several times in support of your id´┐Że fixe.

I've never used the FAQ to support this point. I've used the official 
documentation. There is a difference. The FAQ is a bundled add-on, just 
like how you have several 3rd party modules are bundled as part of the 
core. Same sort of difference.


> A programmer who's never read the FAQ is unlikely to be a very good
> one.

What about one who keep making assumptions they have no way of really 
confirming and perpetuates that as a fact, when it reality it's a rather 
small group of individuals who actually care so much if you write "Perl" 
or "PERL" that they have to practically defend it with their lives.


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


0
Gordon
7/22/2008 11:54:32 PM
Reply: