Review scores are almost completely meaningless. You're comparing a single point of information from several different reviewers on several different subjects. This further dilutes any value remaining in the number.
Several weblogs make their referrer lists public. To a spider, a spammed link is very hard to distinguish from a normal hyperlink. That's how the boost occurs.
... given that most Slashdot readers seem to be...
That reads like a logical fallacy. According to Rob, most Slashdot readers never post. It'd be more accurate to say "most Slashdot posters". Even then, there are wildly divergent belief systems in place. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that a significant portion of Slashdot readers were interested in useful, attractive mergers of proprietary and Open Source software.
You're right -- leaving out the idea of "anonymous posting for registered users" was a mistake. Thanks for bringing it up.
For what it's worth, I've talked to Rob and Jeff both that more open and regular discussion of Slashdot itself would alleviate a lot of concerns. Rob seems pretty happy with the journal system taking on some of this load, though.
I've read both books. They have a great deal in common. I did not consult Sam's book directly before responding, though, so I'm going from memory as to how much detail he provided in the two or three XS chapters.
It's a good thing, according to Larry, because Perl more closely maps to spoken language patterns. His theory is that the computer should do extra work to make the life of a programmer easier.
I don't understand your comment about interpreting that code as a boolean construct. That's exactly how Perl does evaluate it. See B::Deparse for clarification.
You seem to be thinking of Writing Perl Modules for CPAN. There are similarities, but the Jenness/Cozens book goes into more detail about XS than the Tregar book. That's to be expected.
Did you take a civics class in high school? This is exactly the purpose of the Supreme Court. This is exactly the purpose of the idea of checks and balances.
The federal government was not set up as a direct democracy. In theory, every branch must follow the Constitution. It's fantastically difficult to amend the Constitution for a reason.
I disagree very strongly. If a book's intended for beginners, an expert really ought to make sure it contains nothing misleading or wrong. In this case, since I'm experienced with building and distributing modules, I think I have a good perspective on the process. Someone who's never done it before won't be able to compare the book to personal knowledge and experience.
I'm more satisfied with the idea of a perl6 -> java-byte-code compiler similar to jython, since then you get to have the best of both worlds.
If I'm not mistaken, there are several features of Perl 6 that the JVM cannot support: runtime compilation, continuations, closures, and symbol table access, among others. I find that distinguishing.
Re:Perl, XP, and test-driven development
on
Ask Larry Wall
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Perl has fairly good testing support, if you choose to use it. Writing a refactoring browser for Perl is non-trivial, but test first development is possible. I do it regularly.
Re:What happens when it rains? Fog?
on
Electric Armor
·
· Score: 1
I suspect that these ideas don't require wholesale changes to a language
Indeed, Parse::RecDescent has been available in Perl for years. Of course, it doesn't do all of the things mentioned. More importantly, it's not the internal parser for Perl. You can't use it to change the parsing rules of Perl on the fly.
I'm not sure how you'd do that without making wholesale changes to a language.
Slashdot Mirror
Review scores are almost completely meaningless. You're comparing a single point of information from several different reviewers on several different subjects. This further dilutes any value remaining in the number.
I'm filing this one under "Unintentional irony." Thanks!
That's silly. FreeBSD uses a copy-on-write model. If you're swapping kernel memory, you've got bigger problems than choosing an implementation language.
Slashdot ran this story about it on Friday.
Several weblogs make their referrer lists public. To a spider, a spammed link is very hard to distinguish from a normal hyperlink. That's how the boost occurs.
That reads like a logical fallacy. According to Rob, most Slashdot readers never post. It'd be more accurate to say "most Slashdot posters". Even then, there are wildly divergent belief systems in place. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that a significant portion of Slashdot readers were interested in useful, attractive mergers of proprietary and Open Source software.
The real trick was getting them to uncapitalize it!
You're right -- leaving out the idea of "anonymous posting for registered users" was a mistake. Thanks for bringing it up.
For what it's worth, I've talked to Rob and Jeff both that more open and regular discussion of Slashdot itself would alleviate a lot of concerns. Rob seems pretty happy with the journal system taking on some of this load, though.
I've read both books. They have a great deal in common. I did not consult Sam's book directly before responding, though, so I'm going from memory as to how much detail he provided in the two or three XS chapters.
It's a good thing, according to Larry, because Perl more closely maps to spoken language patterns. His theory is that the computer should do extra work to make the life of a programmer easier.
I don't understand your comment about interpreting that code as a boolean construct. That's exactly how Perl does evaluate it. See B::Deparse for clarification.
Try reading it out loud. It's only slightly more nonsense than English. (Perl's case-sensitive, though, so I'm assuming you've provided pseudo-Perl.)
You seem to be thinking of Writing Perl Modules for CPAN. There are similarities, but the Jenness/Cozens book goes into more detail about XS than the Tregar book. That's to be expected.
Did you take a civics class in high school? This is exactly the purpose of the Supreme Court. This is exactly the purpose of the idea of checks and balances.
The federal government was not set up as a direct democracy. In theory, every branch must follow the Constitution. It's fantastically difficult to amend the Constitution for a reason.
Did you find the author's address? I wrote to the info address for the AP.
(I do slightly object to your characterization of editors, though. :)
Beat you to it!
Only to people who apply synecdoche overzealously.
CGI.pm has been a core Perl library for years. An XML processing library and the DBI will probably never be in the default install, though.
I disagree very strongly. If a book's intended for beginners, an expert really ought to make sure it contains nothing misleading or wrong. In this case, since I'm experienced with building and distributing modules, I think I have a good perspective on the process. Someone who's never done it before won't be able to compare the book to personal knowledge and experience.
There is indeed a section on testing. Of course, there are lots of other resources online. :)
The O'Reilly contract is available here. It's a bit old, but the details look the same. (short answer: it depends on the advance)
Try it. print evaluates its arguments in list context -- not scalar.
If I'm not mistaken, there are several features of Perl 6 that the JVM cannot support: runtime compilation, continuations, closures, and symbol table access, among others. I find that distinguishing.
Perl has fairly good testing support, if you choose to use it. Writing a refactoring browser for Perl is non-trivial, but test first development is possible. I do it regularly.
It gets wet.
Indeed, Parse::RecDescent has been available in Perl for years. Of course, it doesn't do all of the things mentioned. More importantly, it's not the internal parser for Perl. You can't use it to change the parsing rules of Perl on the fly.
I'm not sure how you'd do that without making wholesale changes to a language.