|
Posted by Jürgen Exner on April 15, 2008, 12:41 pm
Please log in for more thread options
>What is so wrong with adding to that list,
>
> "PERL" refers to "Practical Extraction and Report Language" ?
Is there a particular reason, why you prefer that expansion over Larry's
own suggestion "Pathologically Eclectic Rubbish Lister"?
>That IS how acronyms work, whether people like you want to admit it or
>not.
Oh, and BTW: acronyms work exactly the opposite direction: You got a
name, take the leading letters, and thus create a new artificial word.
That would be an acronym.
Having an artificial word and trying match the lead letters of a
sequence of words to it is not an acronym but a backronym.
jue
|
|
Posted by Gordon Etly on April 15, 2008, 8:58 pm
Please log in for more thread options
Jürgen Exner wrote:
>> What is so wrong with adding to that list,
>>
>> "PERL" refers to "Practical Extraction and Report Language" ?
>
> Is there a particular reason, why you prefer that expansion over
> Larry's own suggestion "Pathologically Eclectic Rubbish Lister"?
It's not about what -I- prefer, but what is written in 'perldoc perl'. I
do know the document that statement comes from, and I understand what
you are getting at, but in the end it's what is written in 'perldoc
perl' that I'm looking at.
>> That IS how acronyms work, whether people like you want to admit it
>> or not.
>
> Oh, and BTW: acronyms work exactly the opposite direction: You got a
> name, take the leading letters, and thus create a new artificial word.
> That would be an acronym.
Well if you are looking at pure semantics, then you're probably right,
but in general, does it matter which end you are looking from, as long
as you are looking at the same thing? It is written in long form in the
documentation and thus not explicitly written as "PERL", and I know
"PERL" is not used in the documentation, but the question remains, what
is wrong with -using- "PERL" to -refer- to the meaning the documentation
provides? That's all it is, a simple question.
> Having an artificial word and trying match the lead letters of a
> sequence of words to it is not an acronym but a backronym.
Granted, but please see above.
--
G.Etly
|
|
Posted by John W. Krahn on April 15, 2008, 11:04 pm
Please log in for more thread options Gordon Etly wrote:
> J=FCrgen Exner wrote:
>>> What is so wrong with adding to that list,
>>>
>>> "PERL" refers to "Practical Extraction and Report Language" ?
>> Is there a particular reason, why you prefer that expansion over
>> Larry's own suggestion "Pathologically Eclectic Rubbish Lister"?
>=20
> It's not about what -I- prefer, but what is written in 'perldoc perl'. =
I=20
> do know the document that statement comes from, and I understand what=20
> you are getting at, but in the end it's what is written in 'perldoc=20
> perl' that I'm looking at.
There are some papers at the supermarket that have articles about the=20
existence of Bigfoot. It's written down so it must be true. There are=20
some books that say that the moon landings were faked. It's written=20
down so it must be true. There are some books that claim that the earth =
was created in six days. It's written down so it must be true.
John
--=20
Perl isn't a toolbox, but a small machine shop where you
can special-order certain sorts of tools at low cost and
in short order. -- Larry Wall
|
|
Posted by Gordon Etly on April 16, 2008, 12:32 am
Please log in for more thread options John W. Krahn wrote:
> Gordon Etly wrote:
>> Jürgen Exner wrote:
>>>> What is so wrong with adding to that list,
>>>>
>>>> "PERL" refers to "Practical Extraction and Report Language" ?
>>> Is there a particular reason, why you prefer that expansion over
>>> Larry's own suggestion "Pathologically Eclectic Rubbish Lister"?
>>
>> It's not about what -I- prefer, but what is written in 'perldoc
>> perl'. I do know the document that statement comes from, and I
>> understand what you are getting at, but in the end it's what is
>> written in 'perldoc perl' that I'm looking at.
>
> There are some papers at the supermarket that have articles about the
> existence of Bigfoot. It's written down so it must be true. There
> are some books that say that the moon landings were faked. It's
> written down so it must be true. There are some books that claim
> that the earth was created in six days. It's written down so it must
> be true.
That's nice, but what the heck does any of that have to do with the
discussion? How can you compare a tabloid to the official documentation
of a programming language??
--
G.Etly
|
|
Posted by Charlton Wilbur on April 15, 2008, 1:04 pm
Please log in for more thread options
GE> Yes, we all know that, and that is not the point I have tried
GE> to make.
GE> What is so wrong with adding to that list,
GE> "PERL" refers to "Practical Extraction and Report Language"
GE> ?
It does not reflect the usage patterns of the core Perl developers or
Perl experts. The correct usage and the rationale behind it are found
in the Perl FAQ, and no amont of railing and rationalization on your
part will change either.
Simply put: using 'PERL' marks you as someone clueless and ignorant;
if by chance you aren't clueless and ignorant, you're stubborn and
resistant to correction. There's little to be gained by interactions
with such people.
So, your choice is to continue insisting on the validity of 'PERL,'
and wind up in more and more killfiles; or to conform to community
standards and usages. The latter seems more satisfying, no doubt, but
when you do need help, if you have chosen that path, you're much less
likely to get help. Except from other cranks and novices, of course,
but that's not the help you generally want.
GE> That IS how acronyms work, whether people like you want to
GE> admit it or not.
And people often make inferences about the education level, class, and
status of a person from his or her use of language. You've had it
pointed out that one of your usages marks you as either a novice or a
crank; you can continue using it if you see fit, but it is a
deliberate choice at this point and no longer an error.
There are other windmills at which it is more fun to tilt, no doubt.
Charlton
--
Charlton Wilbur
cwilbur@chromatico.net
|
| Similar Threads | Posted | | perl should be improved and perl6 | April 4, 2008, 5:08 pm |
| Will Programming Perl 4th ed be Perl5 or Perl6? | March 27, 2005, 1:31 am |
| what's wrong calling a Perl/CGI script in Perl/CGI script under Tomcat server? | April 8, 2007, 11:38 pm |
| Perldoc: No documentation on perl found [newbie] | December 10, 2004, 1:22 pm |
| what's wrong in this Perl Regex expression? | September 25, 2004, 3:31 pm |
| makefile shows wrong perl version | May 10, 2007, 4:32 pm |
| FAQ 3.30 I've read perlembed, perlguts, etc., but I can't embed perl in my C program; what am I doing wrong? | February 17, 2005, 6:03 pm |
| FAQ 3.29 I've read perlembed, perlguts, etc., but I can't embed perl in my C program; what am I doing wrong? | March 29, 2005, 6:03 am |
| FAQ 3.29 I've read perlembed, perlguts, etc., but I can't embed perl in my C program; what am I doing wrong? | June 13, 2005, 11:03 pm |
| FAQ 3.29 I've read perlembed, perlguts, etc., but I can't embed perl in my C program; what am I doing wrong? | August 27, 2005, 10:03 pm |
|
XML Sitemap