|
Posted by Gordon Etly on April 15, 2008, 9:00 pm
Please log in for more thread options
Charlton Wilbur wrote:
>
>> Yes, we all know that, and that is not the point I have tried
>> to make.
>
>> What is so wrong with adding to that list,
>
>> "PERL" refers to "Practical Extraction and Report Language"
>> ?
>
> It does not reflect the usage patterns of the core Perl developers or
> Perl experts.
I understand that, honestly I do, but that is not what I was asking.
Quite simply, 'perldoc perl' gives an expansion, and my question is why
it should be wrong to use "PERL" as a short hand for that expansion,
since the expansion is found in the official docs?
--
G.Etly
|
|
Posted by Charlton Wilbur on April 15, 2008, 11:31 pm
Please log in for more thread options
>> It does not reflect the usage patterns of the core Perl
>> developers or Perl experts.
GE> I understand that, honestly I do, but that is not what I was
GE> asking. Quite simply, 'perldoc perl' gives an expansion, and
GE> my question is why it should be wrong to use "PERL" as a short
GE> hand for that expansion, since the expansion is found in the
GE> official docs?
It's not *wrong*. It will just mark you as either a novice or a
crank, because people who are not novices will have learned that
'PERL' is widely considered incorrect, and people who are not cranks
do not insist on rationalizing usage that is widely considered
incorrect.
If you do not want people to react to you as if you were a novice or a
crank, don't use 'PERL.' Otherwise, carry on. This is the advice
that the FAQ is giving you, if you only have the wit to read it.
Charlton
--
Charlton Wilbur
cwilbur@chromatico.net
|
|
Posted by Uri Guttman on April 15, 2008, 11:51 pm
Please log in for more thread options
GE> I understand that, honestly I do, but that is not what I was asking.
GE> Quite simply, 'perldoc perl' gives an expansion, and my question is why
GE> it should be wrong to use "PERL" as a short hand for that expansion,
GE> since the expansion is found in the official docs?
why don't you just shut up about this already like you said you
would? all the people who want to use PERL are those who never help
others here. when is the last time you posted an answer to any perl
questions here? you have no standing in the perl community (here or
elsewhere) so why should your opinion matter? the retronym/backronym of
PERL is known. it is only used as a JOKE in the title and the PERL
spelling is because of the man page macros. larry doesn't use PERL. no
decent perl hacker says PERL. only the lame defenders of it here and who
never show up when real help is asked for defend its use. this isn't 12
angry men and you aren't henry fonda. there is no life on the line but
your reputation is. do you want to be known as someone who defends silly
and unsupported stuff like PERL and for nothing else? just drop this
already (don't even reply if you can help it) and move along. maybe you
will do something in the future to regain what little reputation you
might have had. but until then keep quiet. you are just digging a bigger
hole and you are about to stop seeing any sky above you.
uri
--
Uri Guttman ------ uri@stemsystems.com -------- http://www.sysarch.com --
----- Perl Code Review , Architecture, Development, Training, Support ------
--------- Free Perl Training --- http://perlhunter.com/college.html ---------
--------- Gourmet Hot Cocoa Mix ---- http://bestfriendscocoa.com ---------
|
|
Posted by Stephan Bour on April 16, 2008, 2:12 am
Please log in for more thread options Uri Guttman wrote:
} >
} > I understand that, honestly I do, but that is not what I was asking.
} > Quite simply, 'perldoc perl' gives an expansion, and my question is
} > why it should be wrong to use "PERL" as a short hand for that
} > expansion, since the expansion is found in the official docs?
}
} why don't you just shut up about this already like you said you
If you bothered to read the thread, he replied to someone who replied before
he did, so why focus this one single individual, and waste a perfectly good
post displaying you are incapable of opening your mind to other
possibilities instead of acting as if all the FAQs, et al, are carved in
granite.
} all the people who want to use PERL are those who never help
} others here.
That's a rather broad statement, don'cha think? There is a certain logic in
rewriting `Practical Extraction and Report Language` as `PERL` which is a
common form of writing a term whose characters each have a documented
meaning, which would appear to be the case.
} when is the last time you posted an answer to any perl
} questions here? you have no standing in the perl community (here or
} elsewhere) so why should your opinion matter?
Why should the opinion of a pompous ass who can't even correctly use a shift
key at the start of a sentence and for proper nouns? You don't even write
"Perl" properly. Second, wtf makes you the one who decides who is allowed to
start a discussion? Obviously you don't approve of the subject matter, well
too bad. I seriously doubt you have the necessary information to determine
where and if someone has any "standing", nor are you any more or less
special than anyone else so either get with it or kindly stfu.
Stephan.
|
|
Posted by Jürgen Exner on April 16, 2008, 2:57 am
Please log in for more thread options >There is a certain logic in
>rewriting `Practical Extraction and Report Language` as `PERL` which is a
>common form of writing a term whose characters each have a documented
>meaning, which would appear to be the case.
Sure. Nobody is arguing otherwise.
Unfortunately this argument is not applicable to the name of the
programming language that is discussed in this NG, because the language
was named 'Perl', then afterwards(!) the term 'Practical Extraction and
Report Language' was found as a backcronym, and there is no rule or
established custom that the capitalization of a proper name has to be
changed just because now there is a backcronym available.
If you call your friend Joel 'Jolly Old Excentric Lamer' that doesn't
mean that he has to write his name in all caps, either.
jue
|
| 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