What ever happened to comp.lang.perl ?

Discussion in 'Perl Misc' started by Trent Curry, Aug 22, 2003.

  1. Trent Curry

    Trent Curry Guest

    I know this group (comp.lang.perl, not comp.lang.perl.misc) has been dead
    for a long time now, albeit my news server has always carried it, but
    seemingly locally to the server since it is always empty but I can still
    post to it.

    I also noticed that groups.google .com carries comp.lang.perl as well as
    comp.lang.perl.misc, so there seems to be the existence of this group still,
    yes?

    From what I heard a while back, comp.lang.perl simply changed it's name to
    comp.lang.perl.misc.

    What was the reason for this? Does anyone know?

    I have newer understood why the name would be changed instead of just having
    two groups. It probably would of lessened the amount of trouble
    comp.lang.perl.misc has had in the past years, many of which seemed to lead
    to the group name which was very misleading (as most groups with "misc" in
    the name suggestion "miscellaneous", yet many regulars would always point
    out that it wasn't, though I never actually saw an explanation of what
    "misc" was suppose to stand for in this case.)

    So I ask, what is the story here? The original control messages only say
    that this group has taken over the original. But WHY was this name change
    even done in the first place?
     
    Trent Curry, Aug 22, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Trent Curry

    Matt Garrish Guest

    "Trent Curry" <> wrote in message
    news:bi5e6n$btu$...
    >
    > From what I heard a while back, comp.lang.perl simply changed it's name to
    > comp.lang.perl.misc.
    >
    > What was the reason for this? Does anyone know?
    >


    I believe it was to reduce traffic. Someone will undoubtedly correct me if
    I'm wrong, but it wasn't just a change in name, but the splitting of clp
    into .misc and .moderated.

    Matt
     
    Matt Garrish, Aug 22, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Matt Garrish wrote in comp.lang.perl.misc :
    > I believe it was to reduce traffic. Someone will undoubtedly correct me if
    > I'm wrong, but it wasn't just a change in name, but the splitting of clp
    > into .misc and .moderated.


    No, .moderated appeared after the other comp.lang.perl.* groups (to
    reduce the signal/noise ratio compared to what happens here:)

    --
    Unsatisfied is not *NIX
     
    Rafael Garcia-Suarez, Aug 22, 2003
    #3
  4. Trent Curry

    Jon Bell Guest

    In article <bi5e6n$btu$>,
    Trent Curry <> wrote:
    >
    >From what I heard a while back, comp.lang.perl simply changed it's name to
    >comp.lang.perl.misc.
    >
    >What was the reason for this? Does anyone know?


    For a while, the moderator of news.announce.newgroups strongly preferred
    that when a group split, the original group not be left behind in the same
    location in the namespace tree. That is, when splitting comp.foo, instead
    of ending up with something like

    comp.foo
    comp.foo.a
    comp.foo.b

    he preferred

    comp.foo.a
    comp.foo.b
    comp.foo.misc

    This was supposed to make it clearer that the a and b stuff doesn't belong
    in the (renamed) original group any more. Also, it makes certain
    technical aspects of configuring a news server a little bit easier. On
    the other hand, it does confuse some people because some servers never get
    around to removing the original group (as with comp.lang.perl on your
    server), so some people opposed this policy rather strongly.

    There were many heated debates in news.groups about this. Finally the
    news.announce.newgroups moderator gave up and stopped insisting on
    "miscification", so it's not much of an issue any more.

    --
    Jon Bell <> Presbyterian College
    Dept. of Physics and Computer Science Clinton, South Carolina USA
     
    Jon Bell, Aug 22, 2003
    #4
  5. Trent Curry

    Matt Garrish Guest

    "Rafael Garcia-Suarez" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > No, .moderated appeared after the other comp.lang.perl.* groups (to
    > reduce the signal/noise ratio compared to what happens here:)
    >


    I knew I had something not quite right...

    I'm not interested in eliciting a hudson-esque reponse, but the inference of
    ..misc does seem at odds with the willingness of some people to discuss
    anything beyond specific code examples (and this is not meant as a critique
    of the aim of the group, but simply the appropriateness of the identifier,
    as the OP has suggested).

    It isn't much of a stretch for me to understand why new programmers trying
    to get their scripts to run in Apache (simply as an example that occurs
    quite frequently), would think it perfectly reasonable to post to
    comp.lang.perl.misc to ask other Perl programmers what the problem might be
    (without expecting to be flamed). One would assume that Perl programmers
    would probably be familiar with setting up the environment in which to run
    their scripts, and be willing to help.

    On the other hand, clpm is more of a code-oriented discussion group. If you
    don't have a code example, or a specific code question, you're not likely to
    get a warm reception. Although I make no bones about how I feel about the
    way some people asking general questions get treated, I can also understand
    why others feel loathe to help them.

    My question is: has anyone considered a c.l.learn.perl group? (Or anything
    similar?) I'm aware that learn.perl.org has mailing lists, but I suspect
    that much of the unwanted posting in this group would be more quickly
    diverted were posters presented the option of posting to .learn.perl or
    ..perl.misc when looking for a group.

    And if you don't have anything constructive to add, please continue on to
    some other thread... : )

    Matt
     
    Matt Garrish, Aug 22, 2003
    #5
  6. Trent Curry

    Islaw Guest

    Trent Curry wrote:
    > I know this group (comp.lang.perl, not comp.lang.perl.misc) has been
    > dead for a long time now, albeit my news server has always carried
    > it, but seemingly locally to the server since it is always empty but
    > I can still post to it.
    >
    > I also noticed that groups.google .com carries comp.lang.perl as well
    > as comp.lang.perl.misc, so there seems to be the existence of this
    > group still, yes?
    >
    > From what I heard a while back, comp.lang.perl simply changed it's
    > name to comp.lang.perl.misc.
    >
    > What was the reason for this? Does anyone know?


    Like others had said, they wanted to basically match the naming convention
    that the "big 8" groups used.

    > I have newer understood why the name would be changed instead of just
    > having two groups. It probably would of lessened the amount of trouble
    > comp.lang.perl.misc has had in the past years, many of which seemed
    > to lead to the group name which was very misleading (as most groups
    > with "misc" in the name suggestion "miscellaneous", yet many regulars
    > would always point out that it wasn't, though I never actually saw an
    > explanation of what "misc" was suppose to stand for in this case.)
    >
    > So I ask, what is the story here? The original control messages only
    > say that this group has taken over the original. But WHY was this
    > name change even done in the first place?


    Personally I think they should have left it. There are so many groups out
    ther havign to do with a certain language, like

    comp.lang.c++
    comp.lang.c
    comp.lang.java
    comp.lang.javascript

    Some of thosel ike comp.lang.c++ and comp.lang.java have the original group
    and a few child groups.

    Furthur more, so many times in the past there have been people trying to
    push the idea that ".misc" in "comp.lang.perl.misc" dcoesnt stand for
    miscellaneous and instead just a very limited discussion of the language. I
    agree 100% that ".misc" has been a source of a lot of trouble. For petes
    sake, if you are goign to rename a group to include the word or phrase
    "misc" in it (espically in a group where popularity was growing at ahealthy
    rate) you are going to have a lot people coming there because the name would
    lead one to beleive you could ask questions even loosely pertaining to Perl
    with any fear of flaming or what not.

    Thats my 2cents, canadian

    --
    Islaw
     
    Islaw, Aug 22, 2003
    #6
  7. Trent Curry

    Matt Garrish Guest

    "Alan J. Flavell" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    >
    > As should be clear from Jon Bell's reply: what *.foo.misc is supposed
    > to mean on a big-8 group is "anything that would have been on-topic
    > for *.foo, minus those topics which have their own specific group".
    >
    > It does *not* mean "anything which is remotely related to foo, no
    > matter that there might be several other groups where the issue would
    > be more on-topic".
    >


    My intention is not to change clp.misc to anything it isn't already, nor am
    I trying to advocate that. I'm simply positing the idea that maybe a
    clp.learn would be a useful addition to the hierarchy, as it would fill a
    different need.

    >
    > My impression is that other regulars have seen enough times before
    > where off-topic questions have got misleading answers, and would wish
    > to save the questioner from that by nudging them in the direction of a
    > more-appropriate group. Of course, sometimes the questioner has no
    > clear idea just where their problem lies, and for sure a degree of
    > tolerance is then appropriate, but it has to be understood that on a
    > technical discussion group, technical details are the order of the
    > day, and warm fuzzies are for a different venue.


    Which furthers my point. Diversity is a good thing, and warm and fuzzy group
    for beginners would likely: a) keep the discussions in .misc more
    technical-based; and b) provide a more obvious and beginner-friendly
    discussion group for the newbies of the world.

    You also can't expect someone to be gracious to you when you're
    condescending and rude to them (and I don't mean you personally). I've been
    reading this group on-and-off for about 3 or 4 years now, and there are some
    people who, no matter how many times and how many different people criticize
    their lacking manners, seem to believe they have no faults. CLPM is a great
    forum for the novice to advanced programmer, but is more often a black hole
    for the beginner to novice.

    >
    > Has anyone considered reading the not-insignificant previous
    > discussions on that topic area? :-}
    >


    They also tend to go nowhere, as they inevitably fall into bickering about
    whether clpm is the be-all and end-all of perl groups (which is also why I
    put in the concluding comment... : )

    I suppose I could have phrased it differently for those who have seen the
    question before: is it perhaps time to do something?

    Matt
     
    Matt Garrish, Aug 23, 2003
    #7
  8. Matt Garrish wrote:
    > "Rafael Garcia-Suarez" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > It isn't much of a stretch for me to understand why new programmers
    > trying to get their scripts to run in Apache (simply as an example
    > that occurs quite frequently), would think it perfectly reasonable to
    > post to comp.lang.perl.misc to ask other Perl programmers what the
    > problem might be (without expecting to be flamed).


    Except that Apache and Perl have pretty much nothing to do with each other?

    > One would assume
    > that Perl programmers would probably be familiar with setting up the
    > environment in which to run their scripts, and be willing to help.


    Certainly. Just set your path to perl (or perl.exe on Windows) and off you
    go.
    What does that have to do with Apache? I'm writing Perl programs on and off
    for the last 10 years or so. I've never used Apache or any other web server
    for that matter.

    jue
     
    Jürgen Exner, Aug 23, 2003
    #8
  9. Trent Curry

    Luriel Guest

    Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote:
    > Luriel wrote:
    >> No offense instended Flavell, but I think on this note is "where
    >> you'd be dead wrong".

    >
    > Hey, relax, Luriel! There was some irony in Alan's post which I
    > thought was obvious. Seems as if it wasn't that obvious, after all.
    > ;-)


    Point well taken ;p
    I don't mean to get so worked up over such things.
    Sorry about that ;p
     
    Luriel, Aug 23, 2003
    #9
  10. Trent Curry

    Jon Bell Guest

    In article <PAy1b.4299$>,
    Luriel <> wrote:
    >Alan J. Flavell wrote:
    >> On Fri, Aug 22, Matt Garrish inscribed on the eternal scroll:

    >[....]
    >>> It isn't much of a stretch for me to understand why new programmers
    >>> trying to get their scripts to run in Apache (simply as an example
    >>> that occurs quite frequently), would think it perfectly reasonable
    >>> to post to comp.lang.perl.misc to ask other Perl programmers what
    >>> the problem might be (without expecting to be flamed). One would
    >>> assume that Perl programmers would probably be familiar with
    >>> setting up the environment in which to run their scripts, and be
    >>> willing to help.

    >>
    >> That's where you'd be dead wrong, for many of the serious users of
    >> Perl here. (Myself, for one, excluded... but then, maybe I'm not
    >> serious enough... ;-)

    >
    >And you can speak for each_and_every person in this group? Do you really
    >think no "serious" programmer would use it on a www platform???


    No, Alan is alluding to the fact that many serious Perl programmers don't
    do CGI scripts. Perl existed for many years, and had a strong following,
    even before it became popular for CGI scripts. I've been using Perl
    extensively for about ten years, but wrote my first CGI script only
    about a year and a half ago.

    --
    Jon Bell <> Presbyterian College
    Dept. of Physics and Computer Science Clinton, South Carolina USA
     
    Jon Bell, Aug 23, 2003
    #10
  11. Trent Curry

    Luriel Guest

    Jürgen Exner wrote:
    > Matt Garrish wrote:
    >> "Rafael Garcia-Suarez" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >> It isn't much of a stretch for me to understand why new programmers
    >> trying to get their scripts to run in Apache (simply as an example
    >> that occurs quite frequently), would think it perfectly reasonable to
    >> post to comp.lang.perl.misc to ask other Perl programmers what the
    >> problem might be (without expecting to be flamed).

    >
    > Except that Apache and Perl have pretty much nothing to do with each
    > other?


    Ever heard of mod_perl? Apache is only one of the largest (web orientated)
    platforms where Perl is used! As has been said already, virually any *NIX
    distro for the past many years has been coming pre packaged with Apache and
    Perl, and in more times then not Perl is already setup to run on it.

    Face it, CGI is a huge use of Perl and has been for quite some time. Yes
    thye have their own territories but thye also have many overlapping
    properties.

    >> One would assume
    >> that Perl programmers would probably be familiar with setting up the
    >> environment in which to run their scripts, and be willing to help.

    >
    > Certainly. Just set your path to perl (or perl.exe on Windows) and
    > off you go.


    For that matter there is and has been Win32 versions of Apache too ;p

    > What does that have to do with Apache? I'm writing Perl programs on
    > and off for the last 10 years or so. I've never used Apache or any
    > other web server for that matter.


    I've written many web based server management scripts in Perl that run on a
    ww server (Apache in my case.) Hell, WEBMIN is written entirely in Perl!

    Ok, it doesn't *directly* have anything to do with Apache, but Apache can,
    at the same time, be considered a tool to augment Perl.
     
    Luriel, Aug 23, 2003
    #11
  12. Trent Curry

    Sam Holden Guest

    On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 04:38:04 GMT, Luriel <> wrote:
    > Jürgen Exner wrote:
    >> Matt Garrish wrote:
    >>> "Rafael Garcia-Suarez" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...

    >
    >>> One would assume
    >>> that Perl programmers would probably be familiar with setting up the
    >>> environment in which to run their scripts, and be willing to help.

    >>
    >> Certainly. Just set your path to perl (or perl.exe on Windows) and
    >> off you go.

    >
    > For that matter there is and has been Win32 versions of Apache too ;p
    >
    >> What does that have to do with Apache? I'm writing Perl programs on
    >> and off for the last 10 years or so. I've never used Apache or any
    >> other web server for that matter.

    >
    > I've written many web based server management scripts in Perl that run on a
    > ww server (Apache in my case.) Hell, WEBMIN is written entirely in Perl!
    >
    > Ok, it doesn't *directly* have anything to do with Apache, but Apache can,
    > at the same time, be considered a tool to augment Perl.


    I use perl with Solaris. So I should ask all my questions about configuring
    Solaris here? It's a tool to augment Perl after all.

    I edit my perl scripts in vi. Should I ask here for help on vi commands?

    --
    Sam Holden
     
    Sam Holden, Aug 23, 2003
    #12
  13. Sam Holden <> wrote:

    > Should I ask here for help on vi commands?



    How do I get this durn thing out of "beep mode"?


    --
    Tad McClellan SGML consulting
    Perl programming
    Fort Worth, Texas
     
    Tad McClellan, Aug 23, 2003
    #13
  14. Trent Curry

    Jon Bell Guest

    In article <BhC1b.588$>,
    Luriel <> wrote:
    >Jon Bell wrote:
    >> In article <PAy1b.4299$>,
    >> Luriel <> wrote:
    >>> Alan J. Flavell wrote:
    >>>> On Fri, Aug 22, Matt Garrish inscribed on the eternal scroll:
    >>>>> [...] One would
    >>>>> assume that Perl programmers would probably be familiar with
    >>>>> setting up the environment in which to run their scripts, and be
    >>>>> willing to help.

    [Matt was referring specifically to Apache/CGI here]
    >>>>
    >>>> That's where you'd be dead wrong, for many of the serious users of
    >>>> Perl here.
    >>>
    >>> And you can speak for each_and_every person in this group? Do you
    >>> really think no "serious" programmer would use it on a www
    >>> platform???

    >>
    >> No, Alan is alluding to the fact that many serious Perl programmers
    >> don't do CGI scripts. Perl existed for many years, and had a strong
    >> following, even before it became popular for CGI scripts.

    >
    >WEll, the notion that "serious Perl programmers don't do CGI scripts" is
    >just plain wrong.


    He didn't say that. He (and many of the rest of us) are saying that
    *many* serious Perl programmers don't do CGI scripts. It's not that we
    don't feel Perl is suitable for CGI scripts, it's just that we don't do
    CGI scripts. It isn't our field. The field of Perl programming is much
    bigger than just CGI scripts.

    And many of the problems that face CGI programmers who use Perl don't
    depend on the fact that they're using Perl, but instead on server
    configuration, understanding the CGI protocol, etc. People who write CGI
    programs in C or C++ or other languages have those problems, too. That's
    why there's a group for CGI programming that isn't tied to a specific
    language. People who write CGI programs can help each other out there,
    with problems that don't depend on the language they're using.

    --
    Jon Bell <> Presbyterian College
    Dept. of Physics and Computer Science Clinton, South Carolina USA
     
    Jon Bell, Aug 23, 2003
    #14
  15. Trent Curry

    Trent Curry Guest

    "Uri Guttman" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > >>>>> "TM" == Tad McClellan <> writes:

    >
    > TM> Sam Holden <> wrote:
    > >> Should I ask here for help on vi commands?

    >
    >
    > TM> How do I get this durn thing out of "beep mode"?
    >
    > use Emacs ;
    >
    > uri


    Riddle me this: Is it such a crime to ask a question pertaining to vi or
    Emaces or apache that would allow you to work with Perl directly? Ok, you
    would not ask general vi or Emaces or apache questions in this group, but
    there should be no hard in a question that a someone having used Perl might
    know, such as, for sake of example, "how do setup perl syntax
    checking/highlighting in Emaces?" Editors that you two have named are some
    of the most popular editors for UNIX users who write Perl, just like Apache
    is very popular for Perl coders who wish to expand their application of Perl
    to a web browser.

    The point is, such topics have quite commonly been dismissed as off-topic,
    when they indeed relate to Perl, more to something more akin to what should
    be maybe. YES, it's not language specific, but there are also many things
    that people in a vi, or Emaces or apache may not know about Perl (and setup
    stuff and the likes) that a seasoned Perl user likely would.

    I think it's 100% impossible to have dedicated groups for *every*
    possibility and cross subject. If attempted there would most like be at
    least an order of magnitude more news groups on public/ISP Usenet servers
    then there already are.

    Are we just suppose to just out-law anything and everything simply because
    it doesn't meet a tight topic criteria?
     
    Trent Curry, Aug 23, 2003
    #15
  16. Trent Curry

    Uri Guttman Guest

    >>>>> "TC" == Trent Curry <> writes:


    TC> Riddle me this: Is it such a crime to ask a question pertaining to
    TC> vi or Emaces or apache that would allow you to work with Perl
    TC> directly? Ok, you would not ask general vi or Emaces or apache
    TC> questions in this group, but there should be no hard in a question
    TC> that a someone having used Perl might know, such as, for sake of
    TC> example, "how do setup perl syntax checking/highlighting in
    TC> Emaces?" Editors that you two have named are some of the most
    TC> popular editors for UNIX users who write Perl, just like Apache is
    TC> very popular for Perl coders who wish to expand their application
    TC> of Perl to a web browser.

    there is even a autoposted perl in emacs post in this group.

    but configuration of emacs is offtopic. configuration of apache is
    offtopic. neither involve the perl language or program which is the
    topic of this group.

    TC> The point is, such topics have quite commonly been dismissed as
    TC> off-topic, when they indeed relate to Perl, more to something more
    TC> akin to what should be maybe. YES, it's not language specific, but
    TC> there are also many things that people in a vi, or Emaces or
    TC> apache may not know about Perl (and setup stuff and the likes)
    TC> that a seasoned Perl user likely would.

    you still have to differentiate whether it is perl specific or
    apache/editor/whatever specific. in fact knowing the difference will
    lead to a faster solution to the problem for the poster.

    so telling someone that it is not a perl problem is actually helping
    them. the poster doesn't know enough to tell that for themself.

    TC> I think it's 100% impossible to have dedicated groups for *every*
    TC> possibility and cross subject. If attempted there would most like
    TC> be at least an order of magnitude more news groups on public/ISP
    TC> Usenet servers then there already are.

    sure 100% is impossible. but 95% is doable and reasonable.

    TC> Are we just suppose to just out-law anything and everything simply
    TC> because it doesn't meet a tight topic criteria?

    to some value of epsilon it is tight enough. and that is true for most
    groups.

    uri

    --
    Uri Guttman ------ -------- http://www.stemsystems.com
    --Perl Consulting, Stem Development, Systems Architecture, Design and Coding-
    Search or Offer Perl Jobs ---------------------------- http://jobs.perl.org
     
    Uri Guttman, Aug 23, 2003
    #16
  17. On Sat, Aug 23, Luriel inscribed on the eternal scroll:

    > Alan J. Flavell wrote:
    > > On Fri, Aug 22, Matt Garrish inscribed on the eternal scroll:
    > >> [...] One would
    > >> assume that Perl programmers would probably be familiar with
    > >> setting up the environment in which to run their scripts, and be
    > >> willing to help.

    > >
    > > That's where you'd be dead wrong, for many of the serious users of
    > > Perl here. (Myself, for one, excluded... but then, maybe I'm not
    > > serious enough... ;-)

    >
    > And you can speak for each_and_every person in this group?


    I'm going to have to suggest some attention to your reading
    comprehension. "Many of the serious users" does not even attempt to
    speak for "every" person in the group, but as a long-time contributor
    here (and editor of part of faq9 where these issues are explored) I do
    think I have the approximate temperature of the group, and I can
    confidently inform you that there are plenty of serious Perl
    programmers who do not write CGI scripts.

    > Do you really think no "serious" programmer would use it on a www
    > platform???


    Now you're really drifing into fantasy, I'm afraid.

    > No offense instended Flavell, but I think on this note is "where you'd be
    > dead wrong".


    If I had said what you appear to believe I had said, then I would
    indeed be wrong. But I didn't, and I think the record shows that.

    --
    "If designers haven't done previous work for the web, they can come
    to it with certain preconceptions." - Martin Tanton in uk.n.w.a
     
    Alan J. Flavell, Aug 23, 2003
    #17
  18. Luriel wrote:
    > Jürgen Exner wrote:
    >> Matt Garrish wrote:
    >>> "Rafael Garcia-Suarez" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>> It isn't much of a stretch for me to understand why new programmers
    >>> trying to get their scripts to run in Apache (simply as an example
    >>> that occurs quite frequently), would think it perfectly reasonable
    >>> to post to comp.lang.perl.misc to ask other Perl programmers what
    >>> the problem might be (without expecting to be flamed).

    >>
    >> Except that Apache and Perl have pretty much nothing to do with each
    >> other?

    >
    > Ever heard of mod_perl?


    If you have a question about how to use mod_perl then I think nobody will
    yell at you, although maybe CLP.modules might even be a better place to ask.

    > Apache is only one of the largest (web
    > orientated) platforms where Perl is used!


    Sure. As is Linux and FreeBSD and Windows9x and Windows2k and Mac and
    Solaris and .... for non-web oriented.
    Does that make any question about how to configure Linux, FreeBSD,
    Windows9x, Windows2k, Mac, Solaris, .... an appropriate topic for this
    group?
    If the answer would be "Well, you do it exactly the same way as you would do
    it for Fortran or C or Basic or Lisp or ...." then obviously it has nothing
    to do with Perl.

    > As has been said already,
    > virually any *NIX distro for the past many years has been coming pre
    > packaged with Apache and Perl, and in more times then not Perl is
    > already setup to run on it.
    >
    > Face it, CGI is a huge use of Perl and has been for quite some time.
    > Yes thye have their own territories but thye also have many
    > overlapping properties.


    Sure. Just as Perl has a large followship among Unix adminstrators or
    managers of large programming projects even on Windows. Does that make any
    Unix administration question on topic here? Or any question about manage a
    multi-million line programming project?

    >>> One would assume
    >>> that Perl programmers would probably be familiar with setting up the
    >>> environment in which to run their scripts, and be willing to help.

    >>
    >> Certainly. Just set your path to perl (or perl.exe on Windows) and
    >> off you go.

    >
    > For that matter there is and has been Win32 versions of Apache too ;p


    >> What does that have to do with Apache? I'm writing Perl programs on
    >> and off for the last 10 years or so. I've never used Apache or any
    >> other web server for that matter.

    >
    > I've written many web based server management scripts in Perl that
    > run on a ww server (Apache in my case.) Hell, WEBMIN is written
    > entirely in Perl!
    >
    > Ok, it doesn't *directly* have anything to do with Apache, but Apache
    > can, at the same time, be considered a tool to augment Perl.


    As is Notepad or vi or emacs or even DOS. Yes, DOS: if you are using Windows
    then you still need some place to run your Perl script. Does that make any
    DOS question on topic here?
    If the question is related to Perl, then probably yes. Heck, there is even
    an FAQ entry about that DOS quotes are different from Unix quotes or about
    the infamous differences in line end characters.
    But let's say "How do I set my path in DOS so that I can call Perl"? Well,
    you do it exactly the same way you would add any other directory to your
    path.
    "How do open a new window when a user clicks a button?" Well, you do it
    exactly the same way as you would do it in C or Haskell or Cobol (assuming
    you are asking about a CGI script; most often people don't even mention that
    little, minor detail and you wonder if they are talking about Perl::Tk or
    Win32::API or what).

    jue
     
    Jürgen Exner, Aug 23, 2003
    #18
  19. Trent Curry

    Jon Bell Guest

    In article <>,
    Alan J. Flavell <> wrote:
    >
    >Well, that is an accident of history. The rmgroup for comp.lang.perl
    >was properly issued, but for whatever reason it wasn't actioned
    >everywhere


    It's as simple as the fact that the moderator of news.announce.newgroups
    can't hold a gun to every news server administrator's head and tell
    him/her, "remove that group or I pull the trigger." :)

    Very few servers carry out all control messages (especially rmgroups)
    automatically because it's too easy to forge them. It's possible to set
    up a server to use PGP to verify the sender of PGP-signed control
    messages, but many server admins don't go to that trouble.

    Newgroup control messages are affected by the same considerations, but at
    least if someone using a certain server doesn't see a new group show up
    that he's been waiting for, he can ask the server admin to add it, and
    usually it will be done. I doubt that many people would take the trouble
    to ask their admins to remove a "bogus" group that they know about.

    >Conversely, comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets was properly
    >created, but for many years a significant proportion of servers failed
    >to honour its existence, which was annoying for the participants.


    A perfect example. This sort of thing is probably the biggest factor that
    led the new team of n.a.n moderators last year to impose a moratorium on
    converting unmoderated groups to moderated ones. It's confusing when some
    servers carry a group as moderated and others carry it as unmoderated.

    >What's odd to me is that big-8 chkgroups messages are sent at
    >intervals, which are supposed to facilitate synchronisation of the
    >newsgroup names, but it seems that some servers don't honour those
    >either.


    As with other control messages, in order to be sure a checkgroups is
    valid, you need to use PGP.

    --
    Jon Bell <> Presbyterian College
    Dept. of Physics and Computer Science Clinton, South Carolina USA
     
    Jon Bell, Aug 23, 2003
    #19
  20. Trent Curry

    Jon Bell Guest

    In article <>, Jon Bell <> wrote:
    > [...]. The field of Perl programming is much
    >bigger than just CGI scripts.
    >
    >And many of the problems that face CGI programmers who use Perl don't
    >depend on the fact that they're using Perl, but instead on server
    >configuration, understanding the CGI protocol, etc.


    At the risk of creating a greasy spot on the pavement where a horse used
    to be, here's a parallel example.

    The projects that *I* do in Perl usually have to do with processing e-mail
    and newsgroup messages. For example, the moderation software for
    news.newusers.questions. If I had questions about the fine points of
    Net::NNTP and Net::SMTP (all praise to their authors), I'd feel free to
    ask them in one of the comp.lang.perl.* groups. If I had problems with
    setting up my news server to accept the messages that Net::NNTP is trying
    to post, or questions about what information should be in which headers of
    the postings that I'm feeding to Net::NNTP, I wouldn't think of asking
    them here; I'd go over to news.software.nntp.

    --
    Jon Bell <> Presbyterian College
    Dept. of Physics and Computer Science Clinton, South Carolina USA
     
    Jon Bell, Aug 23, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.

Share This Page