|
Posted by Jim Cochrane on April 16, 2008, 5:47 am
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?
IMO, it's fine to use PERL as an acronym for "Practical Extraction
and Report Language", but that (PERL) is not the name of a programming
language; rather, it is simply an acronym for
"Practical Extraction and Report Language", which is a description of
the perl executable that shows up via the perl man pages.
Just as it would not make a lot of sense to call gcc (or the C language)
GPCCC (i.e., an acronym for the description that shows up at the top of
the man page:
gcc - GNU project C and C++ compiler
), it also does not make sense to call Perl (or perl) PERL (i.e., an
acronym for the description that shows up at the top of the man page:
perl - Practical Extraction and Report Language
).
But, IMO, it's not very useful to come up with an acronym (i.e., PERL)
for a description of the perl executable (shown via 'man perl'), or for
any (description of an) executable, for that matter.
--
|
|
Posted by Gordon Etly on April 16, 2008, 12:32 pm
Please log in for more thread options
Jim Cochrane wrote:
>> 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?
>
> IMO, it's fine to use PERL as an acronym for "Practical Extraction
> and Report Language", but that (PERL) is not the name of a programming
> language; rather, it is simply an acronym for
> "Practical Extraction and Report Language", which is a description of
> the perl executable that shows up via the perl man pages.
For the record, I never said it was the name of the language, but,
rather, just as you said about the acronym part :)
Thank you for your understanding.
--
G.Etly
|
|
Posted by Peter Wyzl on April 16, 2008, 6:43 am
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?
Because by convention among those in the community, 'perl' refers to the
binary and 'Perl' refers to the language and PERL is a joke and refers to
neither.
If you want to engage with those knowlegeable in a subject, you should adopt
their conventions. If not....your call...
P
|
|
Posted by Stephan Bour on April 16, 2008, 1:20 pm
Please log in for more thread options Peter Wyzl wrote:
} > 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?
}
} Because by convention among those in the community, 'perl' refers to
} the binary and 'Perl' refers to the language and PERL is a joke and
} refers to neither.
It maybe a joke to *you* but your opinion doesn't change what it says in the
applicable doc. `PERL` very well could correspond with `Practical Extraction
and Report Language`, whether it's a true acronym or as some say, a
backronym [1], it's a shorted form for that description. Everyone who keeps
using the excuse you are is refusing to open their mind to other ideas than
the already established ones.
} If you want to engage with those knowlegeable in a subject, you
} should adopt their conventions. If not....your call...
So, `my way or the hiway`? Are you saying no one may question rules,
conventions, and ideals? Is this really the way you feel a community should
function?
[1]
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/backronym
" backronym jargon
" (Backward acronym) A word which has been turned into an acronym
" by inventing an expansion, rather than the other way around.
" n. [portmanteau of back + acronym] A word interpreted as an
" acronym that was not originally so intended.
Stephan.
|
|
Posted by Jürgen Exner on April 16, 2008, 1:38 pm
Please log in for more thread options >`PERL` very well could correspond with `Practical Extraction
>and Report Language`
It very well could and probably does. But what does that have to do with
the programming language named 'Perl'?
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