Slashdot Mirror


BBC Creates 'Perl on Rails'

Bogtha writes "Long-time users of Perl for their public websites, and having successfully used Ruby on Rails for internal websites, the BBC have fused the two by creating a 'Perl on Rails' that has the advantages of rapid development that Rails brings, while performing well enough to be used for the Beeb's high-traffic public websites. This is already powering one of their websites, and is set to be used in the controversial iPlayer project as well."

216 comments

  1. I would have gotten a first post... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    If it weren't for the fact that Slashdot uses @#$%ing slow Perl!

    1. Re:I would have gotten a first post... by VampireByte · · Score: 1

      Pretty soon we'll be reading Slashdot on Rails.

      --

      Run and catch, run and catch, the lamb is caught in the blackberry patch.

  2. Holy Crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Good god, did anyone proofread that first sentence? Its almost incomprehensible by normal, english-speaking humans.

    1. Re:Holy Crap by quanticle · · Score: 0

      It is indeed a run-on sentence, but its hardly the worst example of such.

      --
      We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
    2. Re:Holy Crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can have accurate news, dependable news, or comprehensible news. Pick any two. The BBC Chose the first two.

    3. Re:Holy Crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Strange it may be, but incomprehensible and a run-on it's not.

      "Long-time users of Perl for their public websites," - an appositive
      "and having successfully used Ruby on Rails for internal websites," - another appositive, successfully connected with a conjunction
      "the BBC" - the subject of the sentence (which the appositives are in apposition to)
      "have fused the two by creating a 'Perl on Rails'" - a perfectly fine predicate
      "that has the advantages of rapid development that Rails brings," - with a relative clause
      "while performing well enough to be used for the Beeb's high-traffic public websites." - and another modifying clause.

      In short: it's a sentence. It's grammatical. It's comprehensible. Quit whining.

    4. Re:Holy Crap by Cheesey · · Score: 4, Funny

      Its almost incomprehensible by normal, english-speaking humans.

      Yes, but add a few $'s and %'s in the right places, and it turns into a one-line cross-platform implementation of iPlayer written in Perl. (If your Perl code can be understood by humans without extreme effort, you're just not trying.)

      --
      >north
      You're an immobile computer, remember?
    5. Re:Holy Crap by pdbaby · · Score: 4, Funny

      I don't see the problem...

      understand it easily if longtime perl programmer($self);

      --
      Global symbol "$deity" requires explicit package name at line 2. - If only $scripture started "use strict;"
    6. Re:Holy Crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Geez English-speaking humans, is there something about commas that frightens you? Here's a tip: Stay away from books like "Swann's Way" or "The Phenomenology of Perception", you know, serious writing. Not the middle school level blog vomiting that people seem to accept as developed thought these days.

    7. Re:Holy Crap by coleblak · · Score: 3, Funny

      The short sentences we use nowadays are a more recent innovation. In the past, run-ons were the bloody norm and they totally sucked; people who used them needed to be shot in a most painful and brutal area since they can make it such a bitch to read a paragraph aloud in class when you're thirteen and just wanting to get it over with and go back to looking at the cute girl who sits in front of you.

      --
      77 HITS
      Really Long Off Topic Combo
    8. Re:Holy Crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Suggestions for you:
      1. Go Back to School
      2. Stop Reading Slashdot all day and go back to school
      3. Stop thinking you're funny, when you are completely wrong
      4. Stop buying things on credit

      Have a good day.

    9. Re:Holy Crap by furry_marmot · · Score: 1

      You've obviously never read a Victorian novel.

    10. Re:Holy Crap by zsouthboy · · Score: 3, Funny

      I am interested in your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

    11. Re:Holy Crap by palegray.net · · Score: 1

      Too much work to add characters in the right places. I've got a surefire method for implementing iPlayer in Perl:

      #!/usr/bin/perl
      system 'iplayer';

    12. Re:Holy Crap by budgenator · · Score: 1

      WTF it's about Perl,the sentence just attempts to sets a proper tone for the subject, do normal English speaking people understand Perl?

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    13. Re:Holy Crap by Goaway · · Score: 1

      Go Back to School In school, they would teach you to use short and clear sentences.
    14. Re:Holy Crap by chaosite · · Score: 1

      Hmm. That is a correct sentence when you look at it like that, but on first reading I assumed "Long-time users of Perl" was the subject, which indeed makes the sentence nonsensical.

    15. Re:Holy Crap by PPH · · Score: 1

      Henry Higgins, where are you when we really need you?

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    16. Re:Holy Crap by The+Anarchist+Avenge · · Score: 1

      scruffy seconds.

      --
      Today's lucky number is: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    17. Re:Holy Crap by zenpickle · · Score: 1

      Yo grammar Nazis,

      I just checked. My four year old had no trouble parsing this sentance. He didn't know any of the nouns but that didn't seem to trouble him. So are you trying to say my four year old isn't a normal human being?

      Please stick with responding to content and generally stop wasting our time.

      ZC

    18. Re:Holy Crap by slaingod · · Score: 1

      Of course, ruby supports almost identical $ and % shortcut functions, thought thankfully they are deprecated.

      --
      http://blog.slaingod.com
    19. Re:Holy Crap by Cairnarvon · · Score: 4, Funny

      If it was meant to be easy to understand, we wouldn't have called it "code".

    20. Re:Holy Crap by Trintech · · Score: 1

      I think you might be onto something here. I found this code snippet in a perl translator:

      if($string =~ m/(I|i) (W|w)ant (S|s)ome (M|m)ore (F|f)ood/)
      {$string = "Please, Sir, Can I have some more?\n"}

    21. Re:Holy Crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    22. Re:Holy Crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If your humans can't understand your Perl code without extreme effort, just put them to work coding in PHP again. And don't forget the dried frog pills.

      Seriously, Perl can be understood by anyone with a few brain cells, and once you open your mind for some new concepts, you'll find that it's much more concise and powerful than the competition.

    23. Re:Holy Crap by Fallingcow · · Score: 1

      "Shortcut functions"?

      Uh...

      $ = variable
      @ = array
      % = associative array

      as in:

      $foo = "Hello world";
      print $foo;

      or:

      @bar = ('hello',"\n",'world');
      foreach(@bar) {
      print $_;
      }

      IIRC. I'm sure I got something wrong; I've been doing most of my work in PHP, and, more recently, Python. Haven't done much with Perl in years.

    24. Re:Holy Crap by blind+monkey+3 · · Score: 1

      That's because it's written in Perl

      --
      BM3
    25. Re:Holy Crap by I_Wrote_This · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      > they would teach you to use short and clear sentences.

            Shortness does not make for clarity and can often add ambiguity.

    26. Re:Holy Crap by strstrep · · Score: 1

      No, it's technically correct, but we like to call those "associative arrays" hashes. Also, the $_ after print is redundant, and the three lines at the end would probably be combined into

      print foreach (@bar);

      But your code is functional.

    27. Re:Holy Crap by chromatic · · Score: 1

      Why not just print @bar;?

    28. Re:Holy Crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In short: it's a sentence. It's grammatical. It's comprehensible. Quit whining.


      It is a sentence, but it is still extremely hard to read because of how outrageously awkward it is. Nobody is whining. That sentence desperately needs revision, and it seems that nobody could be bothered to do it. That's pretty much the way it goes for Slashdot article summaries, though.

      Also, I'm reminded of my favorite Hitchhiker's Guide quote:

      "The problem is, or rather, one of the problems, for there are many, a sizable number of which are continually clogging up the civil, commercial, and criminal courts in all areas of the Galaxy, and especially, where possible, the more corrupt ones, this.
      The previous sentence makes sense. That is not the problem."
    29. Re:Holy Crap by Nexx · · Score: 1

      See, that's the thing. Short and clear, not clear because it's short.

    30. Re:Holy Crap by slaingod · · Score: 1

      No, meaning $_ $! $0 and the perl special variables that some say contribute to it's illegibilty. Just saying that Ruby/Rails has identical special variables named the same, but that they are deprecated/recommended not to be used. There are also a number of quoting and array definition schemes used, like %w( ant bear cat ) or %(Escape this) that are equally 'mysterious', and have other ways to be done that are a little more transparent.

      Just saying that Ruby historically has some of those same things people complain about in perl, as an observation.

      --
      http://blog.slaingod.com
    31. Re:Holy Crap by slaingod · · Score: 1
      Quote from Pragmatic Ruby(page 22) (added bolding): Ruby Escapes Its Past

      In the old days Ruby borrowed a lot from the Perl language. One of these features is a certain "magic" when it comes to global variables, and probably no global is more magical than $_. For example, the gets method has a side effect: as well as returning the line just read, it also stores it into $_. If you call print with no argument, it prints the contents of $_. If you write an if or while statement with just a regular expression as the condition, that expression is matched against $_. As a result of all this magic, you could write the following program to look for all lines in a file containing the text Ruby.

      while gets if /Ruby/ print end end

      However, this style of Ruby programming is rapidly falling out of fashion with purists. As one of these purists happens to be Matz, you'll now find that Ruby issues warnings for many of these special uses: expect to see these features go away in the future. That doesn't mean you have to write more verbose programs. The "Ruby way" to write this would be to use an iterator and the predefined object ARGF, which represents the program's input files. ARGF.each {|line| print line if line =~ /Ruby/ } You could write it even more concisely. print ARGF.grep(/Ruby/)

      In general, there's a move away from some of the Perlisms in the Ruby community. If you run your programs with the w flag to enable warnings (you do run with warnings enabled, don't you?), you'll find the Ruby interpreter catches most of them.

      --
      http://blog.slaingod.com
    32. Re:Holy Crap by leonbloy · · Score: 2, Funny

      'Only a moron could believe that there is nothing wrong with a sentence which can be grammatically parsed as valid and comprehensible but which is so long and twisted that only after thirty words, a lot of comas and conjunctions, you can deduce its structure and realize that its beginning was an appositive instead of the subject', is an affirmation that I would not fully approve.

    33. Re:Holy Crap by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      There's nothing wrong with it, it seems to be proper grammar. It is a bit confusing and should have been edited into two sentences for easier reading.

    34. Re:Holy Crap by 1310nm · · Score: 1

      Freshman composition would have taught the writer to consider the comprehensibility of the sentence, which is just as important as being grammatically correct. If the reader has to review your wording more than twice to grasp the concept you're trying to convey, you have failed.

    35. Re:Holy Crap by insertwackynamehere · · Score: 1

      Clearly you have trouble understanding short and clear sentences because the original poster clearly stated that schools encouraged "short and clear" (emphasis added) sentences as opposed to sentences which were clear because they were short or vice versa and on top of that long sentences like this one aren't always necessarily clear.

    36. Re:Holy Crap by Fallingcow · · Score: 1

      Haha, yeah, I've been away from Perl for a while, and I don't think I've ever actually had need to print every element in an array without doing a bunch of stuff with it first, so constructions like that never stuck in my head.

      Glad to hear I didn't screw up my 5 or 6 lines :)

    37. Re:Holy Crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm. That is a correct sentence when you look at it like that, but on first reading I assumed "Long-time users of Perl" was the subject, which indeed makes the sentence nonsensical. On first reading your post, I noticed you said "That is a correct sentence", which is nonsensical as the word "That" by itself doesn't constitute a valid sentence. Fortunately, people have this remarkable ability to keep reading and the sentence structure reveals itself to be sensible, if uncommon. I find it really fucking strange that you feel the need to explain in a post that, by reading on for an additional two seconds, you corrected your own error.

      "Yeah, boy... I was reading that sentence like a Grade 2 retard but, upon completion of the sentence, it all made sense and I thought you'd like to know the heights of my incompetence. I'm so glad that I have patience only slightly greater than a drugged-out ADD youth."
    38. Re:Holy Crap by Homburg · · Score: 1

      Joining "long time users of Perl" and "having successfully used Ruby" with "and" seems jarring to me, although I'm not confident enough in my grammatical knowledge to say it's definitely wrong. Don't the two clauses have different grammatical structures? "Long time users of Perl" is, what, a noun-phrase? Whereas "having successfully used Ruby" is a sentence fragment with a verb in it. At least, you can say "The BBC are long time users of Perl," but you can't say "The BBC are having successfully used Ruby," which makes me think using the two phrases in a parallel construction is questionable.

    39. Re:Holy Crap by laejoh · · Score: 0, Funny

      If it was meant to be easy to understand, we wouldn't have called it "perl".

      There, I corrected it for you!

    40. Re:Holy Crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      What is more sad, the above post has a bash.org quote, or that I recognize it as being so?

    41. Re:Holy Crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is technically grammatical, but it is NOT correct. It violates parallelism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction "Having been long time users of Perl. . . and having already implemented Ruby . . ." would have been much easier to scan.

    42. Re:Holy Crap by jtgd · · Score: 0

      It wasn't intended for "normal, english-speaking humans". It was intended for Slashdot.

      --
      J
    43. Re:Holy Crap by sydneyfong · · Score: 1

      "Interested. I'm in."

      --
      Don't quote me on this.
    44. Re:Holy Crap by emilper · · Score: 1

      Considering how many people care to express their lack of love for Perl, I think it must still be very important.

    45. Re:Holy Crap by Whatanut · · Score: 1

      Did Yoda just learn perl?

      --

      yvan eht nioj
    46. Re:Holy Crap by gbutler69 · · Score: 1

      I don't know, it seems like perfectlry fernaculat language to me!

      Seriously though, I see nothing wrong with that sentence. I'm tired of everyone wanting everything to be written at a forth-grade level. Please, don't go into some dissertation about "clear communication" and such. Yes, I agreee, if everything is written at a forth-grade level, nearly everyone will understand. But, let's be honest, that can be extremely boring.

      --
      Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
    47. Re:Holy Crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      forth-grade level
      Oh, the irony.
    48. Re:Holy Crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you mean: american-speaking

      -Google

    49. Re:Holy Crap by I_Wrote_This · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      > Clearly you have trouble understanding short and clear sentences

            No, I don't, but likewise I have no problem in understanding long and clear ones. The original sentence, while long, was quite clear to me.

    50. Re:Holy Crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fortunately, people have this remarkable ability to keep reading and the sentence structure reveals itself to be sensible, if uncommon.

      The sentence under discussion, however, in delaying the introduction of the proper subject until the third clause, stretches this ability to breaking point. It is very poorly expressed, as evidenced by the fact that so many people, myself included, failed to parse it at first instance. Nor was I reading this sentence as "a Grade 2 retard." It is possible to confuse even an intelligent reader without breaking the rules of normative grammar.

    51. Re:Holy Crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We already have Ruby without its Perl-isms. Python will still be there when you're ready for it.

    52. Re:Holy Crap by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

      Assuming, the intention of the sentence was for the reader to understand it. I suppose you've never read James Joyce. If people wonder why great literature has died off int he latter half of the 20th century and the early part of the 21st, its precisely because of the stupid, insipid freshman composition classes that beat out any hint,or any appreciation of style. So were left with the insipid sci-fi, fantasy, Stephen King, Tom Clancy, James Paterson, and John Gresham.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    53. Re:Holy Crap by IpalindromeI · · Score: 1

      Maybe $, and/or $\ have been changed, so it wouldn't give identical output.

      --

      --
      Promoting critical thinking since 1994.
    54. Re:Holy Crap by IpalindromeI · · Score: 1

      Henry Higgins was a professor of phonetics, not grammar.

      --

      --
      Promoting critical thinking since 1994.
    55. Re:Holy Crap by HAWAT.THUFIR · · Score: 1

      Haha - I want a bumper sticker with:

      "If your Perl code can be understood by humans without extreme effort, you're just not trying."

  3. Great another framework by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Why didn't they use Catalyst? http://catalyst.perl.org/

    1. Re:Great another framework by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Exactly. They should have just went with Catalyst. RoR is overhyped. Perl on Rails just appears to be a way to hype something. Catalyst is actually a nice MVC spirited implementation that has the advantages of well written Perl code.

      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
    2. Re:Great another framework by ricotest · · Score: 3, Interesting

      According to the developers they were only allowed Perl 5.6 and a select group of BBC-approved modules on the live server. So Catalyst, CGI::Application, etc are right out.

      IMHO another example of management red-tape costing developers time and resources.

    3. Re:Great another framework by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because they recognized it wasn't as good as their own product?

      Catalyst is a joke that Rails programmers have been laughing at for quite a while now. A wannabe at best.

    4. Re:Great another framework by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When you're running a set of websites as staggeringly busy as theirs, paid for with public money, I suspect you'll have strict rules about what gets onto your servers.

    5. Re:Great another framework by paulthomas · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The two frameworks fill different needs. Rails might be great for a completely new product, where you can fully take advantage of its "Convention over Configuration" motto as well as its neat integration between M, V, and C.

      Catalyst aims to be an extensible framework. Sure, there are recommendations for new projects, such as using DBIx::Class as the ORM, or Template Toolkit for your view, but these aren't written in stone. Each layer is flexible. You can use CPAN modules to build your own models and views. Want world GDP data? Make a model that calls WebService::CIA. Have your own custom database model already? Use it! (SixApart did this with Catalyst + their partitioned database system + Memcached).

      Catalyst is a little rough around the edges for some of the simpler cases that you might use RoR for, such as a plain old CRUD form system, which Rails will nicely generate for you, but for more complex applications Catalyst is not a bad choice.

    6. Re:Great another framework by onetruedabe · · Score: 1
      'Cuz "There's More Than One Way To Do It," duh! ;-)

      (You could also ask why not CGI::Application, POE, CGI::Prototype, or innumerable others... You're right, though, Catalyst is the most RoR-esque.)

      Speaking of... If it's Ruby on Rails, shouldn't the equivalent be "Perl on Piles" or something? *Shrug*

      --
      :- Dabe

    7. Re:Great another framework by poopdeville · · Score: 1

      Yes, indeed. And if you're developing a new product, you ought to get a clean slate. There's no reason not to pick out the latest (or even legacy but well-tested) Catalyst modules and freeze them on your server. Or put new ones through QA. I know mst and the rest of the Catalyst bunch would have been happy to help the BBC.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    8. Re:Great another framework by bombshelter13 · · Score: 1

      This name was considered, but the acronym PoP was already taken by Python on Planes.

    9. Re:Great another framework by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Completely a moot point. I assume you're one of the many people who believe that "scaffolding" is the premiere feature of Rails, which you would know is completely incorrect if you'd done even the most minor of research into the topic (try watching the 15-minute site video, for example). Rails is just as extensible as Catalyst, if not moreso -- the language for the front-end and the back-end, as well as templating, is all Ruby. That means you can call in 3rd party modules to do just about anything you would like to on the page, ala CPAN. In other words, everything you claim to be so easily done in Catalyst can also be done in Ruby, and judging by the Perl syntax that I've seen, done easily and quickly in comparison.

      I've used Ruby on Rails to write a threaded message board, a web monitoring system for camera equipment at a university lab...to imply that it can only be used in simple cases would seem to me to be an indication that you really don't know what you're talking about.

      Catalyst, now this "Perl on Rails..." If Perl is so much better for rapid web application development, how come the Perl community is tripping over itself to be Rails all of a sudden?

    10. Re:Great another framework by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Catalyst, now this "Perl on Rails..." If Perl is so much better for rapid web application development, how come the Perl community is tripping over itself to be Rails all of a sudden?

      Aside from the fact that the Catalyst developers and a few people at the BBC are not "the Perl community", better than what? If you're referring to people who think that Perl is better than Ruby, then it's entirely logical that they would prefer "Perl on Rails" to Ruby on Rails (assuming they like the ideas behind Rails in the first place). If you mean people who think that Perl is better than Rails (never mind that it's a meaningless comparison), they're probably not the same people that are trying to emulate it.
    11. Re:Great another framework by chromatic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Rails is just as extensible as Catalyst, if not moreso...

      Have you ever tried to swap out ActiveRecord in its entirety for something else? The corresponding change in Catalyst is much easier than in Rails. (Rails 2.0 might have changed this; I don't know.) Rails is very proudly opinionated, while Catalyst goes to great lengths not to enforce any single particular component.

      ... how come the Perl community is tripping over itself to be Rails all of a sudden?

      Nice synecdoche, but Auntie Beeb's programmers are really not the whole of the Perl community. Plenty of the Perl community doesn't care one whit for web programming, for starters.

    12. Re:Great another framework by drsquare · · Score: 1

      As a licence-payer, I don't give a shit about what perl modules the BBC use on their websites.

    13. Re:Great another framework by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you ever tried to swap out ActiveRecord in its entirety for something else? No. Have you? I doubt it...
  4. Madness, I say by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 4, Funny

    I am going to create "PHP off the Rails" for developers of PHP websites. PHP developers will need no training, as most of them are off the rails already!

    --
    Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    1. Re:Madness, I say by Timesprout · · Score: 0, Troll

      I liked the 'We need Perl' quote from the blog. If you tell me you 'need' a language to implement a website I know I need to find someone else to build it. Sounds like a bunch of Perl coders who cant be bothered to learn another platform trying to keep themselves in jobs.

      --
      Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
      What truth?
      There is no dupe
    2. Re:Madness, I say by Ai+Olor-Wile · · Score: 1

      Screw that, we need Rails on Rails. Then we can port it to itself!

    3. Re:Madness, I say by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sounds like a bunch of Perl coders who cant be bothered to learn another platform trying to keep themselves in jobs.

      Sounds to me like a bunch of Perl coders with a few million lines of corporate code who thought this would be easier than learning another language for one specific smallish project.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    4. Re:Madness, I say by Victor+Antolini · · Score: 2, Funny

      What about http://www.sqlonrails.com/ ? It rocks!!

    5. Re:Madness, I say by kestasjk · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Sounds to me like the BBC are using flat files and no database! They're talking about having tens of thousands of files in a directory, and having an archive of data on all shows the BBC is showing, but no mention of using anything other than flat files!

      I seriously doubt they have very much Perl code around; there's not much dynamic content on BBC. I really can't imagine what their circumstances would have to be for it to be a sane option to rewrite Ruby on Rails in Perl

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    6. Re:Madness, I say by omeomi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you tell me you 'need' a language to implement a website I know I need to find someone else to build it.

      Yeah! Especially HTML!

    7. Re:Madness, I say by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They're talking about having tens of thousands of files in a directory, and having an archive of data on all shows the BBC is showing, but no mention of using anything other than flat files!

      Flat files that are pre-generated from a database backend, maybe. As in a cron job each night that does something like "for show in db.select(shows): generatestaticpage(show)". I'd be amazed if the whole site was just one big Dreamweaver folder that gets published.

      I really can't imagine what their circumstances would have to be for it to be a sane option to rewrite Ruby on Rails in Perl.

      "We have a database engine. We have a template system. We have a language that everyone in-house knows. Let's write a generalized method for combining the three!"

      I suspect that happens a lot more often than you'd think. If anything, I consider it a testament to the BBC that they've decided to release their code so that everyone else doesn't have to reinvent it.

      Disclaimer: I much prefer Python, and to me the BBC is that extra channel that has "Coupling" and "Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares". I have no special love for Perl or the BBC. I just think that it's pretty cool of them to do this and wish them luck.

      Nice sig, BTW. :-)

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    8. Re:Madness, I say by cheater512 · · Score: 1

      First you say that they shouldnt be using flat files and then you say that they dont have much dynamic content.

      Make your mind up please?
      If you have static content and a high load then a database is overkill.

    9. Re:Madness, I say by kestasjk · · Score: 1
      From TFA:

      Like most organisations the BBC has its own technical ecosystem; the BBC's is pretty much restricted to Perl and static files. This means that the vast majority of the BBC's website is statically published - in other words HTML is created internally and FTP'ed to the web servers.

      And a couple of implication, including an effective hard limit on the number of files you can save in a single directory (many older, but still commonly used, filesystems just scan through every file in a directory to find a particular filename so performance rapidly degrades with thousands, or tens of thousands, of files in one directory), the inherent complexity of keeping the links between pages up to date and valid and, the sheer number of static files that would need to be generate to deliver the sort of aggregation pages we wanted to create when we launched /programmes; let alone our plans for /music and personalisation. I really think the BBC is running without using a database, I wouldn't have believed it either but it's right there straight from the horse's mouth.

      Nice sig, BTW. :-) Ta (but you forgot the (PBUH) after the smiley face, you insensitive clod)
      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    10. Re:Madness, I say by Varitek · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a bunch of Perl coders who cant be bothered to learn another platform

      If you'd read the article[1] you'd have found out that they use Ruby on Rails internally, and that's why they replicated its functionality in Perl. The reason they did that was because they weren't allowed to use anything other than Perl.

      [1] Hahahahahahahahahaha[gasp]hahahahahahah
    11. Re:Madness, I say by kestasjk · · Score: 1

      RTFA: They are deploying their Perl on Rails app so that they can have more dynamic content, which they couldn't have before because they're limited to static files and perl scripts. It's basically a hack that allows them to keep their Perl & flat file setup, while allowing dynamic content.

      What I'm wondering is why they don't just use an existing framework and scrap whatever restrictions are keeping them using Perl and flat files.

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    12. Re:Madness, I say by suggsjc · · Score: 0

      I didn't read TFA, only your blurbs and here is what I extrapolated.

      Like the GP I highly doubt that a site that large hand writes each page of their site. The "static" files you/they speak of are probably just the text/content of the page. Furthermore, they probably created a template system (in perl) that allowed them to pull all of the static files together to form a coherent page/site. That template system probably evolved (and then with more guided direction) into what they are now calling 'Perl on Rails'. Besides, using static files that are auto-generated via cron or similar mechanism would be much more efficient (consume less resources) that something that dynamically generates each request using a connection to backend database (think /. or digg or a wp blog).

      --
      When I have a kid, I want to put him in one of those strollers for twins and then run around the mall looking frantic.
    13. Re:Madness, I say by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Personally I don't know why people are always jumping to the 'language of the week'. I don't think 'progress' is the answer. I think too many programmers suffer from the 'we want the coolest new gadget' syndrome. Perl is a good and able language and if they have implemented another tool to help them do their job, then good on them. Why the hell should they bother to learn another platform. That is a ridiculous and juvenile argument. Constantly having to learn new languages just because a new flavour comes along reduces productivity, and makes it difficult to hire new people as there will never be enough people who know the languages on the bleeding edge. Meanwhile they probably have tons of Perl code already in place working just fine. So what if they don't like to use your favourite tool of the week and want to advertise their own favourite. No matter what you may say, they still know how to successfully build and implement one of the highest trafficked news web sites in the world. Shove that in you pipe and smoke it. Get a grip for Christ's sake.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    14. Re:Madness, I say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where did it say they've decided to release their code? I seem to have missed that part.

      Or maybe you are imagining things.

    15. Re:Madness, I say by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      They are deploying their Perl on Rails app so that they can have more dynamic content, which they couldn't have before because they're limited to static files and perl scripts.

      Well, I still think the correct interpretation is that they have a huge number of templated pages that are regularly statically generated. Maybe it's not a daily cron job that recreates the whole site, but a script that takes a template you just edited and turns it into a static page by running some Perl magic on it.

      I'm guessing that "static" here means "non-interactive", not that each page exists in source form as the complete end-user-ready HTML. A huge advantage of this is that your webserver can employ massive naive caching; if two users requrest "foo.html", the second can be served from cache and not from having to regenerate the page. Maybe they want a few pages to be interactive while retaining a large chunk of static content.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    16. Re:Madness, I say by klept · · Score: 1

      I agree. I also agree with the first comment above about the total lack of this guy being able to write a comprehensable sentence in his article. Somebody from the BBC IT department last year wrote back to me about a screw up they had on one of their site pages regarding a radio program that wasnt replaying properly. He thanked me, and gave a long convuluted hack to replay the show. It reminded me of this friend years ago that was explaining to somebody about how to get a German Umlat typed. He had this big involved way of going through the edit menu etc, when all you have to do, as I remember, is press alt + some numbers. Amazingly the BBC never fixed that page / error that I wrote them about

    17. Re:Madness, I say by Slippy. · · Score: 1

      Nothing is "The Answer". Flavour of the week and new exciting tools are bad choices. Using old, leagcy stuff because you know it is bad. Both happen all the time where I work.

      The good projects are the ones that uses established, reliable software to build a *well designed* system, and end up producing something that will be taken care of for years. Simple works better.

      I have a preference for modular systems, but that's me. I don't really like perl for larger sites since it seems to lend itself to complication, but if handled well, maybe they can keep it somewhat simple.

      If this works for BBC, have at 'er.

      --
      -- Life is good. Tastes like chicken.
    18. Re:Madness, I say by rho · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm not getting involved with any of this. I'm holding out for Rails on Rails. You don't have to write any code, you just submit a bid and the project is finished.

      --
      Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
    19. Re:Madness, I say by syousef · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sounds to me like a bunch of Perl coders with a few million lines of corporate code who thought this would be easier than learning another language for one specific smallish project.

      It's called putting all your eggs in one basket. When the language is no longer popular they'll be begging anyone with experience of it to join and trying to rewrite the entire monstrosity. Don't believe me? Think about Oracle forms. Half my job is replacing legacy code. What you're describing is a neat way of creating a HUGE legacy codebase for the future. Excellent for the programmer's job security. Not so good for the employer.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    20. Re:Madness, I say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It exists and is called Cake

    21. Re:Madness, I say by bitmonk · · Score: 1

      I totally agree with the core idea of this last post. I think that rails represents a ruby-oriented implementation of patterns that are popular all over the application development world, on and off the web. I hear great things about it, I don't really love it, I also prefer Python, but damned if I am not glad that Perl users at least think they are object-oriented.

      Maybe on the CLI / Mono / .NET/CLR we can all become better friends and share patterns without so much infrastructure work. :)

      BTW, let us not forget that Python is the only language named after a BBC production, and also, I'm pretty sure the doctah would not have time for dollar signs or know what the fuck chomping is.

      http://bitmonk.net/

    22. Re:Madness, I say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doctah who?

    23. Re:Madness, I say by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

      I'm holding out for Rails on Rails.

      I'm holding out for Assembly Language on Rails.

      As a side note: It's not Assembler. That is the thing that does the assembling. You don't write in compiler, do you?

    24. Re:Madness, I say by kestasjk · · Score: 1

      All the replies questioning my post haven't read the article, which lays it out unambiguously.. How can you debate something which is stated crystal clear in the article?! It probably would have been quicker to read the article than write that reply.

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    25. Re:Madness, I say by Kingrames · · Score: 1

      Oh, something like that.
      All of my computer programs are the same "Hello World" application I did for my first project in college. I just rewrite the compiler from scratch to create new programs from it.

      You insensitive clod.

      --
      If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
    26. Re:Madness, I say by IkeTo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > Sounds to me like a bunch of Perl coders with a few million lines of corporate code who thought this would be
      > easier than learning another language for one specific smallish project.

      Sounds to me like a bunch of Perl coders looked at their friends' code and find their ideas interesting, and is worthwhile to implement in their favorite language. Why people never learn to admit that some people think Perl looks nicer than the language they love most?

    27. Re:Madness, I say by totally+bogus+dude · · Score: 1

      That's a risk you take regardless of the language, and I'd be a lot more comfortable committing to something like Perl which has been around for a very long time and still has very strong advocates, rather than something like Ruby on Rails that's only recently become popular (not to mention PHP which only really seems to appeal to the lowest common denominator).

      Perl has pretty much stood the test of time, though. There's a lot of people with "legacy" pre-.Net VB/ASP code, which at the time was hyped as the next big thing and the most efficient way of programming for Windows/IIS (like all things are). Now, you'd be hard pressed to find people who want to do that kind of work. That's a remarkably short lifespan for a programming language. Even with .Net -- which most people seem to quite like -- they're already up to 3.5 and certainly any pre-2.0 code would be considered "legacy" by most companies at this point... and it's only 5 years old!

    28. Re:Madness, I say by syousef · · Score: 1

      If you diversify the range of languages you use, you limit that risk somewhat in as much as you can expect some of your code to die but hopefully not all.

      Perl won't live forever. No language will. I'd call C the steadiest of the lot and even that's been on the wane for some years (for business apps - I know it's not dead for game development etc.). Languages don't all die together though and by actually using a few different languages and platforms you give yourself some breathing space - as each one dies you replace it. Whereas if all your code is built on a language and it dies...well you have to replace it all in one hit which is never much fun.

      By the way I don't consider .Net a safe language to use at all. Proprietary, and closed, running on a single platform (and yes I'm aware of Mono etc.). I have used .Net, but not commercial and I use Java now, commercially. .Net was simpler and made more sense but you're right the .Net code I wrote a handful of years ago uses legacy Winforms code.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    29. Re:Madness, I say by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2, Funny

      Why people never learn to admit that some people think Perl looks nicer than the language they love most?

      For most of the same reasons that make it hard to admit that their wife is an alcoholic or that their son wants to become a Hari Krishna. There are certain truths that make it difficult to believe in a rational society. Yours is one of them.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    30. Re:Madness, I say by Stamen · · Score: 1

      The irony is, without the those people you don't understand, Perl would of never existed in the first place.

      The world needs both conservative people like yourself, as well as the people always looking for the next greatest thing. You would be programming in assembly without them, and a lot less work would get done without people like you.

      Ruby and Python are next generation languages that both address issues with languages such as Perl. They exist for a reason. I personally really like Ruby as it does Perl and Smalltalk better than Perl and Smalltalk.

      In 5 years if Ruby is as popular as Perl, you will be here aghast at why anyone would try that new language when Ruby is obviously just fine.

    31. Re:Madness, I say by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      Erm, over here at least (UK), Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares is on Channel 4, not the BBC.

    32. Re:Madness, I say by gbjbaanb · · Score: 2, Informative

      absolutely.

      The best reason to use the existing technology is because you're currently using it.
      They could do a bit in Pythin, and another bit in PHP with perhaps a snippet of RoR in there that someone did a prototype in to see if could replace the entire codebase (ha), with a couple of C modules someone wrote for some fast-access parts, maybe with a VB.NET module that was written by someone experimenting with the latest 'coolest' tech, and a slice of Java written by an intern once.

      Or they could leave that kind of technology nightmare and stick to writing business applications that solve business needs and not the developer's current wet dream.

    33. Re:Madness, I say by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      Erm, over here at least (UK), Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares is on Channel 4, not the BBC.

      On my Dish Network system, it's on BBC America.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    34. Re:Madness, I say by ThirdPrize · · Score: 1

      Especially if you work in a large corporation, diversifying the number of languages means having lots of developers who can't work together, as they don't program in a common language. You really need to be able to choose the best people for the job and not just give the project to Fred as he is the only one who knows some obscure language.

      --
      I have excellent Karma and I am not afraid to Troll it.
    35. Re:Madness, I say by syousef · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying you should use 300 different obscure languages, or let programmers use whatever they like. I'm saying one language isn't healthy either. I've learnt that the hard way as I've seen systems go from highly desirable to unwanted legacy in less than 3 years.

      Different languages, like different tools, are also good for different things. What you're proposing is the equivalent of telling a garage full of mechanics that the only tool they may now use are brand X wrenches. All other tools are not permitted. Then wonder why when brand X closes its doors you can't buy them, can't find anyone who knows how to use them, and can't find anyone willing to learn.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    36. Re:Madness, I say by e2d2 · · Score: 1


      It makes sense to use a legacy language because switching to a new platform would offer very little. It makes no sense to write your own implementation of features in newer languages into said legacy language unless it earns a good return. Perhaps that is the case here, I have no idea.

      It has nothing to do with continuing to use PERL, it's got to do with reinventing the wheel because you can. I think the questions are warranted, but only the developers at BBC will know the answers. I'm just happy I'm not forced to eat that sandwich.

    37. Re:Madness, I say by Unoti · · Score: 1

      What programming language went from highly desirable to unwanted legacy in just 3 years? Either you and I have a different idea of the threshold for "highly desirable" or "unwanted legacy", or I'm about to learn something really interesting. I'm thinking of all the languages I've been familiar with over the years and none seem to fit this description.

    38. Re:Madness, I say by syousef · · Score: 1

      I was making very good money with highly sought after niche skills in Smalltalk, and the company I was working for was making wonderful sales in 2000-2001. By 2004 people were avoiding the same software on the basis that it wasn't Smalltalk. I re-skilled to Java, and in the end got a good job elsewhere, but I'm still still playing catchup even now compared to a college kid that's been coding Java since 1997. If I hadn't moved across I'd be out of the industry , be stuck in a job where my employer had all the power because they realized that I had no marketable skills to allow me to move elsewhere, or possibly even collecting unemployment.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    39. Re:Madness, I say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  5. Wow. A consultants dream by thammoud · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Take two of the weirdest looking syntaxes and fuse them together. Life time employment.

    1. Re:Wow. A consultants dream by jhoger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Perl is readable to those that know Perl. I know Perl and I find idiomatic Perl readable.

      And "job security" language choices is just as much a problem with regular employees as consultants. As a consultant there's been more then one occasion where I had to go and clean up the mess after some bored employee made an "interesting" language or framework choice presumably to keep themselves interested.

      -- John.

    2. Re:Wow. A consultants dream by moosesocks · · Score: 1

      I don't know perl. I find it daunting and intimidating. The syntax looks like there was an explosion at an ASCII factory.

      Just like the flamewar that exploded yesterday over HTML/CSS, the success of a language is largely dependent upon how easy it is for newbs or non-technical folk (ie. designers) to pick up. Not all of us have PhDs in CS, or enough time to pour over volumes of texts to learn the language. If you make the language easy to learn, and put in safeguards against common newb mistakes, it's bound to be successful.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    3. Re:Wow. A consultants dream by jhoger · · Score: 1

      As a professional programmer, easy to learn is somewhere on the list of ideal language attributes but it's nowhere near the top.

      I put a language in my bag of tricks if it gives me leverage to solve a wide class of problems in an effective and efficient manner. I ended up liking Perl syntax just fine once I had learned it.

      In any event, it's hard to call Perl an unsuccessful language. Based on the breadth and depth of available CPAN modules, and the fact that Perl support is a given on most web hosts, you have to say it's pretty darn successful.

      -- John.

    4. Re:Wow. A consultants dream by moosesocks · · Score: 1

      Oh, I never doubted that it wasn't successful. PERL *is* a good language. However, I don't foresee all too many new PERL programmers jumping on board, when Python and PHP are easier to learn, and are more or less "just as good" as PERL.

      However, programmer-friendliness is crucial these days for new languages. The number of fairly apt computer users is quickly growing, whereas the number of professional programmers isn't changing all that much. It therefore stands to reason that languages that don't require an advanced degree in order to competently understand are going to become quite popular.

      Although it's not the best comparison to make, take a look at the success of BASIC. Like it or not, PHP is the BASIC of our generation. Reasonably competent users had no problem understanding BASIC, and there were many great tools developed with it by common folk. The difference with PHP is that those "simple" programs can be made into large-scale applications with relative ease thanks to tools like memcached, and the general robustness of the language -- it's got more than its fair share of shortcomings in the eyes of professionals, but it's second to none in terms of the ratio between ease of use and "powerfulness"

      Although I wouldn't bet on amateurs replacing professional programmers for enterprise apps, I would bet on a whole lot more innovative "amateur" web-apps becoming successful, and then being grown into legitimate large-scale applications thanks to the fact that the "easy" languages sufficiently robust for large-scale deployment. (Facebook is a textbook example of this)

      Like so many other "good" languages, PERL is quickly becoming a dinosaur. At least with PERL, we do have a number of decent replacements -- Python and PHP are both fantastic for their target audiences. Let's hope we can do the same for other ones like LaTeX that are quickly becomind dated (although a fantastic language, LaTeX has one of the worst interpreters on the planet -- Donald Knuth may be a CS God, but he has absolutely no aptitude for writing comprehensible error messages, or being forgiving of even the slightest syntax error....)

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    5. Re:Wow. A consultants dream by chromatic · · Score: 1

      Like so many other "good" languages, PERL is quickly becoming a dinosaur. At least with PERL, we do have a number of decent replacements...

      What are you talking about? PERL was never a good language. Fortunately, it was never as popular as Perl, despite having a confusingly similar name.

    6. Re:Wow. A consultants dream by Tumbleweed · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Perl is readable to those that know Perl. I know Perl and I find idiomatic Perl readable.

      I think it more accurate to say that Perl code is readable to the person that wrote that particular piece of code. Since there are a million and one ways to do anything in Perl (and this is considered a 'strength'), then when another Perl hacker comes along and can't understand what the previous Perl hacker did, they rewrite the whole thing the way they know how to do it. That doesn't meet my definition of 'readable.'

    7. Re:Wow. A consultants dream by mkcmkc · · Score: 1

      Perl is readable to those that know Perl. I know Perl and I find idiomatic Perl readable. The question isn't whether or not those who know a language find it readable. Of course they do. The question is how readable the language is to those who haven't studied the language for years, and how much study it takes before the language is readable. In this sense, Perl is quite a poor language.

      And "job security" language choices is just as much a problem with regular employees as consultants. As a consultant there's been more then one occasion where I had to go and clean up the mess after some bored employee made an "interesting" language or framework choice presumably to keep themselves interested. If I seem bitter, it's because 98% of the messes I have to clean up are written in Perl. The best thing I can say for Perl (and C++) right now is that it's a great "crap magnet". That is, if something's not written in Perl, there's a much better chance in practice that it's reasonably well written.
      --
      "Not an actor, but he plays one on TV."
    8. Re:Wow. A consultants dream by chromatic · · Score: 1

      In this sense, Perl is quite a poor language.

      You can't judge a language on its own. You have to judge programs written in that language, and those depend on plenty of external critera: the problem domain, the experience of the original author in that problem domain, the experience of that author in the language, the quality of the code, and more.

    9. Re:Wow. A consultants dream by jhoger · · Score: 1

      On the contrary, if a programmer doesn't know Perl well, then he or she is not qualified to maintain Perl code. Such a programmer is plain and simple, a danger to the code base. Maintenance programming is hard. It means getting into someone else's head enough to make adjustment to their implementation without introducing regressions, or rewriting stuff and losing important features or bugfixes in the process.

      So, what do you know, maintenance work is often given to junior engineers, who are as a rule do not have the background and maturity to do maintenance well.

      In any event, source code in languages of any reasonable capability, that I don't know, always look like crap to me. Take Scheme: I don't know Scheme, and Scheme code looks like crap. I have learned enough about it to see patterns in the crap, but I still don't know enough to maintain good Scheme code. If I was forced to maintain it my only hope would be to rewrite it to some simpler subset that I do know.

      That doesn't say anything about the programmer, the code or the language. It says much more about me.

      I'm not saying the code you are maintaining is bad. Maybe it is. But it is hard to tell really good from plain bad unless you're an expert. Edge cases like Obfuscation contest entries aside...

      -- John.

    10. Re:Wow. A consultants dream by chromatic · · Score: 1

      If you make the language easy to learn, and put in safeguards against common newb mistakes, it's bound to be successful.

      I believe this is the 4GL fallacy.

    11. Re:Wow. A consultants dream by Neil+Watson · · Score: 1

      The old programmer didn't document the code properly or the new programmer was to lazy, inexperienced or incompetent to take the time to understand the old programmer's work. Whatever the reason the language used, perl or otherwise, is not to blame.

    12. Re:Wow. A consultants dream by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1

      > I think it more accurate to say that Perl code is readable to the person
      > that wrote that particular piece of code.

      If documented properly, it readable by others too.

      The issue is that many programmers take undue advantage of Perl conciseness by not documenting their particular sleights of hand.

    13. Re:Wow. A consultants dream by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perl is readable to those that know Perl. I know Perl and I find idiomatic Perl readable.

      I call BS. We had a 10K real software project in Perl, as nicely written and commented code as I've ever seen and reading Perl was still a mess. Does palaparambara clear ((p*)a+(r)*|(bar))* or not? what modifications are needed if you wanted it to?

    14. Re:Wow. A consultants dream by HAWAT.THUFIR · · Score: 1

      "You can't judge a language on its own." What about ? -Thufir

  6. Super by brunes69 · · Score: 4, Funny

    So... is this trying to combine the slowness and unscaleability of Ruby on Rails with the unreadability of Perl?

    1. Re:Super by Seumas · · Score: 1

      Saying Perl isn't readable is like saying English isn't readable. It depends on whose hand the pen is in.

    2. Re:Super by brunes69 · · Score: 1

      When you're writing with a blunt tip fountain pen whose inkwell is clogged with dirt, it doesn't matter who is doing the writing. It is going to eventually end up a mess.

    3. Re:Super by Nazlfrag · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ahh, the old 'double negative' development methodology. They should have just gone with Microsoft Office SharePoint Portal Server, that's got full enterprise grade quadruple negative power.

    4. Re:Super by ^Case^ · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why is it that every time somebody mentions Ruby on Rails people have to say it's slow and unscalable? I'm getting kind of tired seeing this myth propagated. Ruby may be slower than $LANG but it's not that much slower, and the Rails shared nothing architecture makes it infinitely scalable up to the point where the database backend can't keep up anymore. And once you get there it's not really the framework that doesn't scale anymore is it?

      Additionally the expressiveness of Ruby combined with the conventions of Rails leads to comparatively little code, making it easy to change the app to take advantage of advanced deployment strategies like using memcached scaling the app even further.

      So unless you can come up with concrete examples of unscaling Rails apps or arguments as to why Rails does not scale please keep quiet. Statements like yours without any arguments doesn't really provide much value, even if they are true. Thank you.

    5. Re:Super by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is it that every time somebody mentions Ruby on Rails people have to say it's slow and unscalable?
      Because it's true.

      I'm getting kind of tired seeing this myth propagated.
      I'm getting a little tired of Ruby fanboys who can't accept that their chosen language has issues. Even Matz acknowledges that Ruby is too slow - that's why there's all this effort going into building a new interpreter, remember?

      Ruby may be slower than $LANG but it's not that much slower
      It's about an order of magnitude slower than Java. It's slow. It has many virtues, but speed is not one of them. Please try to get this into your skull, because you will be a better person when you get over your denial issues and recognise that Ruby is not flawless.

      and the Rails shared nothing architecture makes it infinitely scalable up to the point where the database backend can't keep up anymore.
      In theory, perhaps. In practice it's cheaper to use cheap, plentiful Java programmers to write an app that runs at an acceptable speed on available hardware, rather than hiring expensive, rare Ruby programmers and having to spend a fortune on throwing hardware at the code they write in a desperate attempt to make it fast enough.
    6. Re:Super by Seumas · · Score: 1

      Yeah, well . . . *INSERT AUTOMOBILE ANALOGY HERE*.

      You and your language of choice just got SERVED, sir! *grin*

    7. Re:Super by IpalindromeI · · Score: 1

      Perl is like an armored truck modified to be an F1 racecar. Experienced drivers that know how to handle it properly don't need to worry about any other driver on the track. Inexperience drivers will probably injure the crowd, although rarely themselves.

      (How's that?)

      --

      --
      Promoting critical thinking since 1994.
  7. Conspiracy! by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 4, Funny

    This is proof that there is a conspiracy to make up absurd programming shenanigans to sell overpriced door stoppers! Coming soon...

    "Perl on Rails for Dummies"

    "Perl on Rails for Idiots"

    "Perl on Rails Bible"

    "Perl on Rails in 24 Hours"

    "Perl on Rails in a Nutshell"

    "Perl on Rails: The Missing Manual"

    ...at a bookstore near you to burn a hole in your wallet!

    1. Re:Conspiracy! by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      Most of those O'Reilly titles end up available for free from Bittorrent sites anyway.

    2. Re:Conspiracy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Not if you are a Comcast subscriber.

    3. Re:Conspiracy! by jrockway · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, actually... there is a Perl MVC book on Catalyst:

      http://www.packtpub.com/catalyst-perl-web-application/book

      It's much better than the Rails books though :)

      --
      My other car is first.
    4. Re:Conspiracy! by poopdeville · · Score: 1

      Hey, didn't/don't you hang out on #catalyst? I'm cidooh. It's been a while, you might not remember me.

      (Replying anonymously because you seem to have put me on your enemies list)

      Love,
      poopdeville

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    5. Re:Conspiracy! by shenanigans · · Score: 1

      Since the terms Rails and Ruby on Rails are trademarked, I doubt the "on Rails" name will survive for very long. BBC should probably have checked that out first.

    6. Re:Conspiracy! by jrockway · · Score: 1

      I don't think you actually replied anonymously :) Anyway, I removed you from the foes list.

      --
      My other car is first.
    7. Re:Conspiracy! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Since the terms Rails and Ruby on Rails are trademarked, I doubt the "on Rails" name will survive for very long. BBC should probably have checked that out first.

      Just rename it to Choo Choo Perl.

  8. Don't get your hopes up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    This'll be UK-only; probably licensed under the BBCPL, which is like the GPL, but only for people in England, Scotland, Wales, and N. Ireland.

    1. Re:Don't get your hopes up by adnonsense · · Score: 0, Troll

      Why not use the UK-specific MCPL (Mad Cow Public License), the GPL version better suited to the British ecosystem?

    2. Re:Don't get your hopes up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and will only be available to those who pay the Beeb license fee...

    3. Re:Don't get your hopes up by adrianmonk · · Score: 3, Funny

      This'll be UK-only; probably licensed under the BBCPL, which is like the GPL, but only for people in England, Scotland, Wales, and N. Ireland.

      Could be worse. Could be released under the TVL (TV Licence), where you'd have to pay £135.50 per year to run the software. (Or £45.50 if your web site is in black and white instead of color.)

      The good news then would be that if you live in your parents' basement and they have a TV Licence paid for, you can host the web site under their licence as long as the server is located in your parents' house.

    4. Re:Don't get your hopes up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not Wales... they always forget about us.

    5. Re:Don't get your hopes up by speculatrix · · Score: 1

      not only that, if you don't use the BBC product but simply own a computer you have to by law sign up to it and pay the £135 license fee, but then you get to proclaim proudly to the rest of the world we have the best gov't controlled BBCPL-licensed products.

    6. Re:Don't get your hopes up by Elky+Elk · · Score: 1

      And they would send everyone threatening letters insisting they had a licence....

  9. glark by Juln · · Score: 3, Funny

    Whatever.

    As long as it somehow involves more and better Dr. Who reruns, I'm happy.

    What? Their website? I want Dr. Who reruns on that, then. The ones with the curly haired guy.

    --
    Juln
  10. Thanks a lot Beeb.. by Adambomb · · Score: 3, Funny

    With all that the perl community sees in terms of mockery, did you REALLY need to add "powers the BBC iPlayer" to it?

    --
    Ice Cream has no bones.
    1. Re:Thanks a lot Beeb.. by turgid · · Score: 1

      Never underestimate the insanity of the British Public Sector.

    2. Re:Thanks a lot Beeb.. by value_added · · Score: 1, Insightful

      With all that the perl community sees in terms of mockery ...

      Sniff. At the very least, we'd feel better if others could learn that it's Perl and not perl. ;-) I'll take this opportunity (in anticipation of the inevitable complaints about unreadable notation) to point out the following:

      $ is for scalar, @ is for array, # is for hash

      Not so hard, was it? Notice the mnemonic qualities? Much of Perl has a striking resemblance to natural language, given that it's author, Larry Wall is a trained linguist. For the most part, it's those qualities that makes it easy to read and easy to write. And fun. But then, as with any language, there's often a widespread use of abbreviated forms of expression, or alternatively, idioms, the use of which, when used by someone who is skilled, trained, or otherwise knowledgable, is commonplace and second nature, but when encountered by a non-native writer or speaker of that language, are difficult to comprehend and require time and practice to master.

      That said, for a language as powerful, widespread, thoroughly documented, and easy to learn as Perl, I do find it disappointing that it's popularity has been eclipsed somewhat over the years. Go Beeb!

    3. Re:Thanks a lot Beeb.. by BorgCopyeditor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Only Perl programmers think Larry Wall is a trained linguist. It would be more accurate to say he remembered some terms from a few linguistics classes he took as an undergraduate (notably "topicalization") and used them as metaphors to describe the rationale behind some design choices he made in creating Perl. The explanations aren't terrible, and some things in Perl's syntax were indeed "intuitive" by comparison with C, but the notion that Perl "has a striking resemblance to natural language" is a dream of people who don't really know much about how "natural language" looks, i.e., non-linguists.

      --
      Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
    4. Re:Thanks a lot Beeb.. by jrockway · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > $ is for scalar, @ is for array, # is for hash

      % is for hash. And that's not really a good rule.

      Given %hash, it's called @hash{@keys} when you slice it, and $hash{$key} when you only want one element. References always are scalar, so even though $foo->{bar}[42][2]{baz} is referencing a hash of arrays of arrays of hashes, you have a $ on the front.

      Once you know the rules, it's fine... but it's not necessarily Perl's finest point (and this all changes in Perl 6 as a result). Even if you like Perl, you have to admit that there are lots of things wrong with it.

      There are just less things wrong with Perl than any other language :)

      --
      My other car is first.
    5. Re:Thanks a lot Beeb.. by chromatic · · Score: 2, Informative

      ... the notion that Perl "has a striking resemblance to natural language" is a dream of people who don't really know much about how "natural language" looks, i.e., non-linguists.

      ... and several of the other trained linguists who use and develop Perl.

    6. Re:Thanks a lot Beeb.. by Adambomb · · Score: 1

      Capitalize Perl in the shebang or command line and see how much Perl gets interpreted =)....without scripts, symlinks, or renaming. (and %hash)

      Semantics Nitpick Counter-Attack #42562

      Your confirmation for this waste of my employers time is 608232.

      Plus, i'm on your side mon seigneur. If you want to find the source of its declining popularity please remember CGI.pm and Perl/TK. We did it to ourselves, despite improvements =).

      --
      Ice Cream has no bones.
    7. Re:Thanks a lot Beeb.. by belg4mit · · Score: 1

      Actually, convention is that it is Perl when used in the context of other capitalized things like Java and C,
      otherwise it's humble old perl.

      --
      Were that I say, pancakes?
    8. Re:Thanks a lot Beeb.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't comment on whether % is a good choice for the hash sigil, but # was already taken as it was used for comments in Shell scripts (remember that Perl has its roots in sh, awk, sed etc).

      And @hash{@keys} and $hash{$key} are perfectly fine, too - you just have to keep in mind that the sigil is not part of the name but rather specifies the kind of structure you'll get. Slicing a hash yields an array, so you need a @ sigil; taking a specific value from a hash yields a scalar, so it's $ then. Same thing for references, too - a reference is a scalar, hence it uses $.

      Of course, you may say that you'd prefer to not keep this in mind and that always using % (or whatever) for hashes, @ for arrays and $ for scalars would come natural to you. That's certainly fine; however, to others, what I've said above comes naturally, and keeping in mind that sigils *are* part of the symbol's name would require extra effort.

      So it's really the same difference (although as you've noted, things have changed in Perl 6, since the former kind of people apparently are in the majority after all - at least the vocal majority.)

      But then, if this is the biggest complaint you have about Perl, I'm happy, anyway. :) (Disclaimer: I'm not affiliated with Perl in any way; I just like it.)

    9. Re:Thanks a lot Beeb.. by poopdeville · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Given %hash, it's called @hash{@keys} when you slice it, and $hash{$key} when you only want one element.

      I know you know this, but others don't.

      The hash is always called 'hash'. The sigil provides datatype information for the intended return value of your access to the variable -- just about everything in Perl is an expression and has a return value. Program evaluation follows a model remarkably similar to what a functional language might use, evaluating sub-expressions as needed. I'm sure the internals could be better or smarter, but they definitely aren't bad.

      Sigils also provide a simple namespacing mechanism, so you can have $hash (say, a reference to a hash) and %hash in the same scope.

      And because there's that layer of indirection between the variable's raw values and its return value, you can inject code to make variables act differently than they normally would when accessed, by using the Tie mechanisms. As a result, a fair amount of Perl's OO syntactic sugar can in principle be defined in terms of Perl code instead of having to be a part of the interpreter. This mechanism is obviously open for abuse,

      In fact, I'm starting to think that a closure-based object system could be made to replace Perl's "standard" OO system with minimal syntax changes through the use of ties.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    10. Re:Thanks a lot Beeb.. by BorgCopyeditor · · Score: 1

      OK, I'm not going to pretend I know more than you about developing Perl, for obvious reasons. And my ignorance about the training of the people developing it is showing. But since I have you on the line, so to speak, are you in fact asserting that Perl is like natural languages? I'm not sure either linguistics or computer-language development is well served by this comparison. Do you think it is? On a day-to-day basis, does it actually guide your choices about the language?

      --
      Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
    11. Re:Thanks a lot Beeb.. by ctzan · · Score: 1
      Actually Perl meets the 'natural language' criteria of some dillettante who had struggled unsuccessfully to learn a foreign language with a manual and grammar: no rule without at least 3 exceptions, and a lot of misleading and unused logical paths.

      The weirdness of the syntax has no technical motivation; it's not like is reflecting some internal structures or following some coherent principles; it's a bunch of ad-hoc decisions based on the fact that somebody wasn't liking too many parantheses, or has just fallen suddenly in love with how nice a particular construct was looking in some other language.

      When I was first learning perl, I couldn't make sense of why ex. push /^\s*#/ ? @c : @d, $_ wasn't working. I've taken the source and looked through it: perl wasn't keeping any track of the type of the return value of an operator, but was STILL enforcing some dumb type safety with a shallow kludge that was looking only at the direct arguments for its built-in functions, in a macro-toy-language way.

    12. Re:Thanks a lot Beeb.. by chromatic · · Score: 1

      When I was first learning perl, I couldn't make sense of why ex. push /^\s*#/ ? @c : @d, $_ wasn't working.

      That one's pretty easy. It's because there's a hard-coded prototype (in Perl 5 terms) in the parser that prevents the automatic flattening of an array when it's the first argument to push. Of course, your jab about "macro toy language" isn't fair. I can't think of a language with operator precedence and nested expressions that doesn't have to do something similar in certain places.

    13. Re:Thanks a lot Beeb.. by strstrep · · Score: 1

      Perl is the language. perl is the interpreter.

    14. Re:Thanks a lot Beeb.. by chromatic · · Score: 4, Interesting

      But since I have you on the line, so to speak, are you in fact asserting that Perl is like natural languages?

      Yes, to some degree. The primary goal of Perl, like other programming languages, is to communicate with other programmers. There appear to be two schools of thought on how to do this. One of them comes from the mathematicians, who appreciate simplicity and uniformity of expression (as least per their on definitions of both) as a primary design criterion. The other comes from the linguists, who (in my opinion) have somewhat better ideas of how people (not just mathematicians) really communicate.

      I'm not saying that one is bad and the other is good. You'd never likely get the Turing model or the lambda calculus out of a linguist, for example, and COBOL and AppleScript aren't great examples of applying linguistic principles to language design either -- so there's a balance to strike between them.

      I'm not sure either linguistics or computer-language development is well served by this comparison.

      I agree to some degree, but just because no one has ever done it perfectly doesn't mean it's not worth doing.

      On a day-to-day basis, does it actually guide your choices about the language?

      Yes, actually. Remember that Perl is an artificial language, so it can simultaneously be more and less a pastiche than English. Consistency and syntactical similarity of semantics are important in natural language (avoid false cognates) but even more so in a programming language. The Perl 6 designers believe strongly that similar things should look similar and dissimilar things should look dissimilar. As well, concepts such as noun markers and subject-verb agreement (context) are present in Perl, as well as pronouns (topicalization). This brings up other problems such as ambiguous antecedents.

      The designers evaluate new operators and concepts in terms quite heavily. Mnemonics are important, as well as the proper length of identifiers and semantics of their names. For example, Perl 6 uses say instead of println because we believe it will be a frequent operation -- more frequent than print and as such deserves a shorter identifier. Whatever the syntax for accessing the current continuation will be, it's likely to be somewhat longer, as it's not something we want people to need to use more than a few times.

    15. Re:Thanks a lot Beeb.. by BorgCopyeditor · · Score: 1

      Chromatic,

      From (my) snark to (your) informativeness in two posts. Bravo. Thanks for taking the time; I understand that this is something you are intimately involved with and in a position to speak about authoritatively.

      The principle that a programming language should be designed in light of its function as a medium of communication between programmers seems like a very insightful one, and I can understand that with that goal in mind, study of human communication is probably more useful than study of algorithmic efficiency (or whatever computer scientists study, which I don't know). The correlative principle that "different things should look different" sounds good, too, though (as you're probably quite well aware) the important thing here is what the relevant differences are. What is unclear to me is just what branch of human sciences studies what kinds of similarities and differences programmers are looking for. Maybe it's the emerging science of Perl Apocalyptology!

      In any case, thanks again for keeping me honest and schooling me.

      --
      Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
    16. Re:Thanks a lot Beeb.. by chromatic · · Score: 1

      What is unclear to me is just what branch of human sciences studies what kinds of similarities and differences programmers are looking for.

      I think it's a combination of computer science and linguistics, with some degree of human factors included. There are a lot of ways to analyze a programming language -- ease of use, ease of learning, succinctness, power, abstraction possibilities -- but there's relatively little debate over existing languages along those lines beyond "I don't know Perl and I don't like its syntax" or "Java needs closures".

      I'm well aware that some people have tried both languages and prefer the syntax of Python to Perl (and vice versa; vertical whitespace rules drive me crazy), and that's fine. I work on Perl because I find that it offers a nice answer to some of those questions, and I think that we can improve the answer even further in Perl 6 for the several billion potential programmers in the world. I also don't mind explaining why certain things are they way they are, at least to people willing to ask questions smarter than "How can anyone read all those punctuation characters?"

    17. Re:Thanks a lot Beeb.. by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

      Much of Perl has a striking resemblance to natural language, given that it's author, Larry Wall is a trained linguist.

      Well, I know *I* feel like I've been struck after having to look at some Perl code. Trained linguist? Jesus!

    18. Re:Thanks a lot Beeb.. by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1
      For example, Perl 6 uses "say" instead of "println" because we believe it will be a frequent operation -- more frequent than print and as such deserves a shorter identifier.

      Please forgive me for ranting, but that one of the dumber things I've heard in recent years (during a Bush Presidency no less). "Say" implies speach, not text and substituting it for "print" or "printf" (println is Pascal) simply because it's "shorter" is silly -- but I've heard Perl 6 is full of design silliness, so oh well... I guess I'll stick with Perl 5.8 like the rest of the world :-)

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    19. Re:Thanks a lot Beeb.. by chromatic · · Score: 1

      "Say" implies speach, not text and substituting it for "print" or "printf" (println is Pascal) simply because it's "shorter" is silly...

      You might as well say that print implies hot metal plates covered in ink, write implies scribes, and puts is a misspelling of a Yiddish euphemism. Everything in a digital computer is a metaphor, including data structures more complex than a single bit. The forces of anti-silly lost their battle years ago, probably even before there were moths... er, bugs.

    20. Re:Thanks a lot Beeb.. by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1
      Everything in a digital computer is a metaphor,

      Ya, I know. It's just that "say" is specifically "print" with a newline and was created specifically because the name is shorter. Language pollution is what I'd call it.

      It seems that (in this case) Perl 6 is being invented to make it less like Perl, and more like, well, bits and pieces of every other language. And for what? To make the language successful? Every language is idiosyncratic. Deal with it people.

      OK, I'm off to juggle kittens...

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    21. Re:Thanks a lot Beeb.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a trained cunnilinguist, I feel Perl to be like having a pubic hair stuck in my teeth ;)

    22. Re:Thanks a lot Beeb.. by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      It seems that (in this case) Perl 6 is being invented to make it less like Perl, and more like, well, bits and pieces of every other language.


      So more like PHP?

      More seriously, this seems to happen to almost every successful language, as it becomes so widely used in the area that is most specialized for that people want it to do that plus related things so they don't have to use two or more languages, and this demand drives the evolution of the language.

      I'm not sure its a bad thing, so long as it doesn't lose, in the change, those of its distinguishing features that make it so attractive to its main use.
    23. Re:Thanks a lot Beeb.. by Malevolyn · · Score: 1

      I must say that this comment is one of those most fairly moderated on Slashdot.

      --
      Your ad here.
  11. Surely the BBC of all organizations... by goombah99 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Should have preferred Python or Parrot. I mean c'mon. nudge nudge know what I mean... She's a goer.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:Surely the BBC of all organizations... by eniac42 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I mean... say no more. A nudge is as good as a wink to a blind bat..

      Seriously though I dont know what the BBC is doing, smoking its way through £130m PA ($260m) of public money on computer "projects", like re-inventing mplayer/iPlayer/MediaPlayer.. Haven't we already done this? Shouldn't Aunty Beeb leave the hard-coding to the free market & concentrate on what it does best - artistic/jounalistic output?

      --
      "A nation that forgets its past is doomed to repeat it." - Churchill
  12. "But what if he were to have your brains and .... by pH03n1X · · Score: 1

    ... my beauty" - Bernard Shaw to a woman who wrote to him that she wanted to have children with him - "think of the child with your brains and my beauty."

  13. Let me fix it for you by El+Lobo · · Score: 1
    ...and is set to be used in the controversial on Slashdot iPlayer project as well.

    There... thank me later

    --
    It's time to realise that Abble's products are the biggest abomination these days. Just say NO to the dumb iAbble way!!
  14. But what is Rails standing on? by Phroon · · Score: 4, Funny

    At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. Web development is really Ruby supported on the back of Rails."

    The developer gave a superior smile before replying, "What is Rails standing on?"

    "You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's Rails all the way down!"

  15. We need a story about Russian railroads by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

    Then in Soviet Russia, we can read about rails on slashdot.

  16. Time to domain-squat! by 4thAce · · Score: 1

    The obvious name is, at the time I write this, still available.

    --
    Inventor of the LOLbalrog meme.
  17. But "Perl on Rails" is not alliterative... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    how about "Perl on a Pogo Stick"?

    1. Re:But "Perl on Rails" is not alliterative... by Ignominious · · Score: 1

      How about Perl in a Pram?

      Nicely reflects the speed at which you can understand everybody elses code, and your enthusiasm for scripting in an MVC framework.

  18. Not anymore. by EricJ2190 · · Score: 1

    Domain ID:D106018335-LROR Domain Name:PERLONRAILS.ORG Created On:04-Apr-2005 20:19:16 UTC Last Updated On:15-Oct-2007 18:37:19 UTC Expiration Date:04-Apr-2008 20:19:16 UTC Sponsoring Registrar:GoDaddy.com, Inc. (R91-LROR) Status:CLIENT DELETE PROHIBITED Status:CLIENT RENEW PROHIBITED Status:CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED Status:CLIENT UPDATE PROHIBITED Registrant ID:GODA-011071713 Registrant Name:Marcus Adair Registrant Street1:4111 N Drinkwater Blvd Registrant Street2:C101 Registrant Street3: Registrant City:Scottsdale Registrant State/Province:Arizona Registrant Postal Code:85251 Registrant Country:US Registrant Phone:+1.6027514978 Registrant Phone Ext.: Registrant FAX: Registrant FAX Ext.: Registrant Email:gcomnz@gmail.com Admin ID:GODA-211071713 Admin Name:Marcus Adair Admin Street1:4111 N Drinkwater Blvd Admin Street2:C101 Admin Street3: Admin City:Scottsdale Admin State/Province:Arizona Admin Postal Code:85251 Admin Country:US Admin Phone:+1.6027514978 Admin Phone Ext.: Admin FAX: Admin FAX Ext.: Admin Email:gcomnz@gmail.com Tech ID:GODA-111071713 Tech Name:Marcus Adair Tech Street1:4111 N Drinkwater Blvd Tech Street2:C101 Tech Street3: Tech City:Scottsdale Tech State/Province:Arizona Tech Postal Code:85251 Tech Country:US Tech Phone:+1.6027514978 Tech Phone Ext.: Tech FAX: Tech FAX Ext.: Tech Email:gcomnz@gmail.com Name Server:NS15.DOMAINCONTROL.COM Name Server:NS16.DOMAINCONTROL.COM Name Server: Name Server: Name Server: Name Server: Name Server: Name Server: Name Server: Name Server: Name Server: Name Server: Name Server:

  19. "need" is the new "want" by petes_PoV · · Score: 3, Funny
    If you tell me you 'need' a language to implement a website ...

    This is just word-inflation. in the same way that children nowadays "need" a chocolate bar.

    In business, the best way to see if someone really "needs" something is to see how much hassle they're willing to suffer to get it. For example, if they need a $1000 product, then I'd need a 20 page justification. If they need to attend a conference in 'Vegas, I need them to work weekends to catch-up the time etc. You get the idea.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
  20. That could be reasonable actually by Tim+Ward · · Score: 1

    Free to use for those who have actually paid for it.

  21. What a sad choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Between Larry Wall (Christian) and Ruby (Mormon)? How can I trust a language from someone who can't think logically? Seriously. Would you trust anyone who believes in Santa Claus past age 21?

    Compromise is overrated. Python has an atheist founder.

    1. Re:What a sad choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Choosing a language based on whether or not the person who created it is religious or not? That's one of the most retarded comments I've ever seen on Slashdot in the last 10 years.

  22. I'm not a perl coder, so I don't know by discogravy · · Score: 1

    But how is this substantially different from say Mason (http://masonhq.com)? I understood the Ruby-on-Rails thing is just a framework to get ruby to work with sites; afaik Mason is pretty much the same thing (I have worked with a site that used it in place of CSS stuff in the late 90's, and I know that large sites also use it, like ebay and amazon. it's great for dynamic content generated through perl scripts to be published).

  23. Lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When I first read the title I thought this was about a typo in some BBC article calling ruby on rails "perl on rails" and the ruby zealots were bitching, so I think this is a good outcome .

  24. Python on Maglev by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In retaliation, the Python community has now released 'Python on Maglev'.

    Those 'rail' thingies are just so old fashioned. :-)

  25. Rails Is Scalable by aldheorte · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    While you might levy other criticisms against Rails, performance is not one that sticks. Scaling a Rails app is like scaling any other Web app framework. I'm consistently amazed that people go on with the Rails is not scalable mantra, yet they have never tried to scale a Rails app, or probably any Web app for that matter. Scalability problems generally occur at the database level anyway, which affects all Web frameworks equally.

    Bottom line is trying to replicate Rails in Perl instead of figuring out how to scale Rails for your particular app smacks of not invented here syndrome, general cluelessness, and going around a horse's ass to get to its nose.

    1. Re:Rails Is Scalable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I'm consistently amazed that people go on with the Rails is not scalable mantra

      Because ActiveRecord isn't scalable. You have to pretty much defeat the basic nature of ActiveRecord (see "N+1 selects") to make it fast. ActiveResource on the other hand is pretty cool and if you have good http caching going on, you get all the RESTful scalability you can eat.

  26. Rails running off with Perl by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Ruby, I told you not to take your love to town.

  27. It's the BBC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, combined with the intuitiveness of Cockney slang.

    Tired of Perl being like a jam on the frog? If Perl's your china, you can crank out a wind and kite all Jack Jones. You'd have to be bacon to use Ruby.

  28. It's too late, don't you think? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just don't see the point of putting a trainwreck on rails.

  29. two years later by bh213 · · Score: 1

    Article is published on Daily WTF...

  30. Something to do with Fast CGI? by daBass · · Score: 1

    For Perl, there is mod_perl, Ruby runs on Fast CGI. Now I am not the biggest Perl fan, but I would still take it over any Fast CGI application any day.

    I know there is Mongrel now, but even the creators don't seem to trust it enough to let it run stand-alone and recommend you run it behind an Apache proxy. Not something I can imagine the BBC - or anyone with a large web farm - wanting to live with.

  31. Catalyst Advent Calendar by yes+it+is · · Score: 1

    This seems as good a place as any to let interested people know about the 2007 Catalyst Advent Calendar. 24 days of how to work with catalyst. This year things are getting pretty sophisticated, with the first two entries dealing with Catalyst/YUI integration, including how to build a CRUD app with catalyst and YUI.

  32. Never mind the merits of perl or ruby by Budenny · · Score: 1

    Never mind the merits of perl or ruby, the question inquiring minds in the UK want to ask is, how can we stop spending money on this project? We are not interested in funding the BBC to invent new programming methods, languages or anything else. We do not want to be forced to fund magazines and various news channels we do not watch, and appalling non-stop comedy channels that make our toes curl, and iplayers that don't work with our computers....and so on and so on!

    How do we stop this train and get off?

    And still be legally authorized to watch TV we do want to watch?

    1. Re:Never mind the merits of perl or ruby by totally+bogus+dude · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How do we stop this train and get off?

      Complain to your elected representatives, perhaps? Now THAT's thinking outside the box!

    2. Re:Never mind the merits of perl or ruby by Elky+Elk · · Score: 1

      Our elected representatives aren't supposed to have any sway over the BBC (I'm not for one moment saying that's true, see Yes Minister, but that's the principle).

  33. Catalyst by incripshin · · Score: 1

    I know Python, would like to learn Perl, and don't and won't learn Ruby. Ruby fills the same niche as Python, but I like Python's language and documentation more. When I heard about what Catalyst had to offer developers over Rails, my desire (small as it was) to learn Ruby just got the nails in its coffin. I heard a really interesting podcast on FLOSS Monthly with Jay Shirley, a Catalyst proponent.

    (Side note: The page I link to actually uses the word 'evangelist'. I just looked up the meaning of 'evangelist' for curiosity's sake, and it means, in Latin, a person who brings the word of God. Notice that the word contains 'angel'. In this light, using 'evangelist' to describe a proponent of anything not considered holy is sacrilege. If this isn't bothersome to you, then this note simply doesn't concern you :).)

    1. Re:Catalyst by chromatic · · Score: 1

      I just looked up the meaning of 'evangelist' for curiosity's sake, and it means, in Latin, a person who brings the word of God. Notice that the word contains 'angel'.

      It's Greek, actually. The word comes from eu, which means "good", and angelos, which means "messenger". New Testament Greek tends to use angelos to mean "messenger from God", but that's a specialization of an existing word.

    2. Re:Catalyst by incripshin · · Score: 1

      I was using dictionary.com, and it only offered Latin. It seems difficult to find out the original meaning of words now instead of the popular usage.

  34. slow whitelisting of CPAN modules by zby · · Score: 2, Insightful
    There is an insightful thread on the Catalyst mailing list about this. In summary it looks that:
    • The code has not been released - so all the discussion is a bit void
    • The reasons for it's development seem to be based on misunderstandings and 'white listing' of allowed modules (plus only Perl 5.6 allowed)
    • It looks like Siemens, which in some way administers BBC working environment, is very reluctant to white list new CPAN modules - so the BBC developers reinvent on a grand scale.
    If someone knows someone from Siemens involved in the whitelisting process - then please ask him why it is so slow and ask how the Perl community could help them to make it faster.
  35. *Jumps off the window* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Horror... The Horror!!

  36. "incomprehensible" by whom? by joel.neely · · Score: 1


    s/normal/short-attention-span/g
    s/english/american/g


    Sufficiently terse?

  37. BBC uses Ruby on Rails you lazy non-RTFA jerks!! by spage · · Score: 1

    Great, a bunch of lazy-ass /.ers repeatedly quoting a line that's correctly ranked a Score:0 post because it contradicts TFA.

    TFA by the BBC guy says: "For applications that run internally we use Ruby on Rail. [sic]"

    --
    =S
  38. Re:BBC uses Ruby on Rails you lazy non-RTFA jerks! by syousef · · Score: 1

    Nice trolling.

    It doesn't invalidate the argument of whether you should use a single language or several, and it doesn't make that argument less interesting. It's a discussion forum is it not? Discussions meander and evolve. Get over it.

    In person, you wouldn't walk up to 2 people having a discussion and interupt to call them lazy-ass (or if you would you're a jerk that probably has no friends). Have some manners online too. It's not too much to ask.

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  39. Wrong language vs. Tough time in the industry by Unoti · · Score: 1
    Your post was interesting and thought provoking to me. One thing of particular interest though:

    I was making very good money...wonderful sales in 2000-2001... By 2004... 2000-2001 was a major turning point for just about everyone in the software industry. Pretty much every software developer had it good in the late 90's up to 2000 or 2001, and then things got comparatively ugly for everyone. Perhaps some of what you saw wasn't all related to the wrong language, but part of it was perhaps related to everything going sideways in the industry at that time. There's some sweeping generalizations in my comments here to be sure, but I imagine that lots of people here have stories about how things changed for them in 2000-2001. I know I sure do!
    1. Re:Wrong language vs. Tough time in the industry by syousef · · Score: 1

      Thanks. What I said earlier in the thread wasn't wasn't just me talking out of my backside, it's based on personal experience.

      I'm only now getting back to what I was earning in 2001. I'm sure things changed for most.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer