Well how many hits are typically generated by a good/.ing, especially one that is slightly porny sounding? Multiply that by say 25 (for the number of times people do it) and then by n cents. It could represent a fair amount, especially as online advertising usually represents a small part of the marketing budget...
Certainly do not use popup blockers for this, on the contrary, bring them up, click, bring'em up again and click click until you're tired -- it'll cost them money for each click... I reckon we could even have a "Click The Bush" campaign in which good net citizens would click on those ads several times a day to help rid the world of this pestilence:)
Re:XML is NOT just text!
on
XML and Perl
·
· Score: 1
I know that paper, so? I never said it was faster (especially as SOAP::Lite does not use the fastest parsers). I was talking about the flexibility and the wealth of tools. That's easily verifiable, and given that I use both Perl and Java for XML work all day, I simply know I'm right.
Re:The Right Tool for the Right Job
on
XML and Perl
·
· Score: 1
That's because you see XML more or less as an object serialisation syntax when it has been proven over and over again that there's serious impedance mismatch between those two views (at least, with Java's rather limited view of OO). See XML Schema if you don't think so.
Don't forget that the Desperate Perl Hacker was in the requirements for XML. And they succeeded pretty well in making XML match Perl.
Re:XML frees us from Perl
on
XML and Perl
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Not much help? If you start counting the number of Perl modules that expose a SAX interface to non-XML data (not to mention the host of other super-useful SAX tools) you'll probably find only one egal, Python.
And if you think that XML has freed us from additional text processing, you obviously haven't used XML much, or at least without much variety. Most people seem constantly bent on including microlanguages in attribute values or text content. Those need good text processing.
Re:XML is NOT just text!
on
XML and Perl
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
True and then not so. Perl's flexible data structures and OO make it a simpler approach than languages that think XML == Object Serialisation. It is also very likely that a lot of what you're going to see flying by in SAX or hanging around in DOM will be text. Sometimes lots of it, sometimes text that has non-XML structure and requires microparsing.
But anyway, what really puts Perl ahead of the pack (together with Python, the only viable competitor I've tried -- Java is really lagging these days) is its large wealth of SAX (and to a lesser degree, DOM) tools. All sorts of very useful filters can be grabbed, complex pipeline management is a given, the SAX writing framework is cool, there are SAX parsers for many non-XML formats, etc.
This is by far one of the most useful books on my bookshelf. If you have a problem just pick it up, thumb through it a bit, and find the answer. Its approach, which is very different form that of the Eagle book, was sorely needed for a long while.
Slashdot Mirror
Please understand that we're talking mobile here, not desktop.
Well how many hits are typically generated by a good /.ing, especially one that is slightly porny sounding? Multiply that by say 25 (for the number of times people do it) and then by n cents. It could represent a fair amount, especially as online advertising usually represents a small part of the marketing budget...
Certainly do not use popup blockers for this, on the contrary, bring them up, click, bring'em up again and click click until you're tired -- it'll cost them money for each click... I reckon we could even have a "Click The Bush" campaign in which good net citizens would click on those ads several times a day to help rid the world of this pestilence :)
How about a $250k bounty on whoever at MS wrote the code that has so many silly security holes?
If it's any consolation, http://fuck-verisign.com/ now resolves properly. Ah well...
I know that paper, so? I never said it was faster (especially as SOAP::Lite does not use the fastest parsers). I was talking about the flexibility and the wealth of tools. That's easily verifiable, and given that I use both Perl and Java for XML work all day, I simply know I'm right.
That's because you see XML more or less as an object serialisation syntax when it has been proven over and over again that there's serious impedance mismatch between those two views (at least, with Java's rather limited view of OO). See XML Schema if you don't think so.
Don't forget that the Desperate Perl Hacker was in the requirements for XML. And they succeeded pretty well in making XML match Perl.
Not much help? If you start counting the number of Perl modules that expose a SAX interface to non-XML data (not to mention the host of other super-useful SAX tools) you'll probably find only one egal, Python.
And if you think that XML has freed us from additional text processing, you obviously haven't used XML much, or at least without much variety. Most people seem constantly bent on including microlanguages in attribute values or text content. Those need good text processing.
True and then not so. Perl's flexible data structures and OO make it a simpler approach than languages that think XML == Object Serialisation. It is also very likely that a lot of what you're going to see flying by in SAX or hanging around in DOM will be text. Sometimes lots of it, sometimes text that has non-XML structure and requires microparsing.
But anyway, what really puts Perl ahead of the pack (together with Python, the only viable competitor I've tried -- Java is really lagging these days) is its large wealth of SAX (and to a lesser degree, DOM) tools. All sorts of very useful filters can be grabbed, complex pipeline management is a given, the SAX writing framework is cool, there are SAX parsers for many non-XML formats, etc.
Would be nice to have a book with more than just one chapter on web services.
You might be interested in Programming Web Services with Perl then.
This is by far one of the most useful books on my bookshelf. If you have a problem just pick it up, thumb through it a bit, and find the answer. Its approach, which is very different form that of the Eagle book, was sorely needed for a long while.