From doug.miles at bpxinternet.com Mon Dec 2 14:25:24 2002 From: doug.miles at bpxinternet.com (Doug Miles) Date: Thu Aug 5 00:16:52 2004 Subject: Phoenix.pm: Parameter parser References: <3DE3CF66.4080108@bpxinternet.com> <3DE3EBA2.2050303@bpxinternet.com> Message-ID: <3DEBC1B4.1080402@bpxinternet.com> Doug Miles wrote: > Doug Miles wrote: > >> Hey all, >> >> I just implemented a parser that takes something like this: >> >> command param1 param2="value2" param3="value3 \"foo\"" >> >> and puts the parameters and values into a hash. The value for param1 >> would be "1". I'm not sure I implemented it the best way, though. I >> thought I'd get some ideas from you folks to get a different >> perspective. I'll post what I did after I get some responses. I >> don't want to contaminate your thinking. :) >> >> > > I left out a few details that I forgot to mention. There can be > optional whitespace around the '=' and command may be a command, a > scalar, an array, or a method call. What the program does from there > depends on which it is. Right now the program is putting the data in an > array, but this will change to a hash in the future. Oh, and ignore the > $tag_parser parameter. :) > > I have to pay around with Scott and Eden's examples some more, but here > is what I did (I'm sure the formatting will be screwed up): Thanks for the input guys. I did consider using Parse::RecDescent, but it seemed a little heavyweight for this application. I realized that in my previous program, I was putting the regexes in array context, which screwed up the /g \G combination: if(my ($match, $scalar) = $tag_content =~ /\G^(\$([a-zA-Z0-9_:.]+))/) { pos($tag_content) += length($match); } This caused me to have to manually update the position pointer. If you just use the numbered variables instead, everything works out: if($tag_content =~ /\G^\$([a-zA-Z0-9_:.]+)\s*/gc) { $scalar = $1; } I learned this the hard way. :) I worked on this some more, and this is what I have now: #!/usr/bin/perl use strict; use warnings; use Regexp::Common; my $tag_content = '$scalar param1 param2="\"test2\""'; my @parameters = process_tags('', $tag_content); print join('|', @parameters) . "\n\n"; $tag_content = q{@array format="'test3'" default_format="test4"}; @parameters = process_tags('', $tag_content); print join('|', @parameters) . "\n\n"; $tag_content = q{%hash format="'test5'" default_format="test6"}; @parameters = process_tags('', $tag_content); print join('|', @parameters) . "\n\n"; $tag_content = <<"EOD"; command doug = "test7" julie = "test8" EOD @parameters = process_tags('', $tag_content); print join('|', @parameters) . "\n\n"; $tag_content = 'command "doug"="test7" julie="test8"'; @parameters = process_tags('', $tag_content); print join('|', @parameters) . "\n\n"; # process_tags ######################################################### sub process_tags { my $tag_parser = shift; my $tag_content = shift; my $scalar; my $array; my $hash; my $command; my @parameters; print "\$tag_content: $tag_content\n"; while(pos($tag_content) < length($tag_content)) { if($tag_content =~ /\G^\$([a-zA-Z0-9_:.]+)\s*/gc) { $scalar = $1; } elsif($tag_content =~ /\G^\@([a-zA-Z0-9_:.]+)\s*/gc) { $array = $1; } elsif($tag_content =~ /\G^\%([a-zA-Z0-9_:.]+)\s*/gc) { $hash = $1; } elsif($tag_content =~ /\G^([a-zA-Z0-9_:.]+)\s*/gc) { $command = $1; } elsif($tag_content =~ / \G # Start at last match pos. ( ([a-zA-Z0-9_:.]+) # A parameter. (?: \s*?=\s*? # '=' & optional WS. $RE{delimited}{-delim=>'"'}{-esc=>'\\'}{-keep} # '"' delimited # value. )?\s* ) /gcx # / Fix VIM syntax highlighting problem. ) { my $match = $1; my $parameter = $2; my $value = defined($5) ? $5 : 1; $value =~ s/\\"/"/g; push(@parameters, ($parameter, $value)); } else { die "$tag_content\n" . ' ' x pos($tag_content) . "^\n"; } } return @parameters; } # program output # $tag_content: $scalar param1 param2="\"test2\"" param1|1|param2|"test2" $tag_content: @array format="'test3'" default_format="test4" format|'test3'|default_format|test4 $tag_content: %hash format="'test5'" default_format="test6" format|'test5'|default_format|test6 $tag_content: command doug = "test7" julie = "test8" doug|test7|julie|test8 $tag_content: command "doug"="test7" julie="test8" command "doug"="test7" julie="test8" ^ From codewell at earthlink.net Mon Dec 2 17:31:42 2002 From: codewell at earthlink.net (Hal Goldfarb) Date: Thu Aug 5 00:16:52 2004 Subject: Phoenix.pm: Parameter parser In-Reply-To: <3DEBC1B4.1080402@bpxinternet.com> References: <3DE3CF66.4080108@bpxinternet.com> <3DE3EBA2.2050303@bpxinternet.com> <3DEBC1B4.1080402@bpxinternet.com> Message-ID: I highly approve of your coding style and modular breakdown (similar to mine). Consistency is wonderful : ) -Hal On Monday 02 December 2002 01:25 pm, Doug Miles wrote: > Doug Miles wrote: > > Doug Miles wrote: > >> Hey all, > >> > >> I just implemented a parser that takes something like this: > >> > >> command param1 param2="value2" param3="value3 \"foo\"" > >> > >> and puts the parameters and values into a hash. The value for param1 > >> would be "1". I'm not sure I implemented it the best way, though. I > >> thought I'd get some ideas from you folks to get a different > >> perspective. I'll post what I did after I get some responses. I > >> don't want to contaminate your thinking. :) > > > > I left out a few details that I forgot to mention. There can be > > optional whitespace around the '=' and command may be a command, a > > scalar, an array, or a method call. What the program does from there > > depends on which it is. Right now the program is putting the data in an > > array, but this will change to a hash in the future. Oh, and ignore the > > $tag_parser parameter. :) > > > > I have to pay around with Scott and Eden's examples some more, but here > > is what I did (I'm sure the formatting will be screwed up): > > Thanks for the input guys. I did consider using Parse::RecDescent, but > it seemed a little heavyweight for this application. I realized that in > my previous program, I was putting the regexes in array context, which > screwed up the /g \G combination: > > if(my ($match, $scalar) = $tag_content =~ /\G^(\$([a-zA-Z0-9_:.]+))/) > { > > pos($tag_content) += length($match); > > } > > This caused me to have to manually update the position pointer. If you > just use the numbered variables instead, everything works out: > > if($tag_content =~ /\G^\$([a-zA-Z0-9_:.]+)\s*/gc) > { > > $scalar = $1; > > } > > > I learned this the hard way. :) > > I worked on this some more, and this is what I have now: > > #!/usr/bin/perl > > use strict; > use warnings; > > use Regexp::Common; > > my $tag_content = '$scalar param1 param2="\"test2\""'; > my @parameters = process_tags('', $tag_content); > print join('|', @parameters) . "\n\n"; > > $tag_content = q{@array format="'test3'" default_format="test4"}; > @parameters = process_tags('', $tag_content); > print join('|', @parameters) . "\n\n"; > > $tag_content = q{%hash format="'test5'" default_format="test6"}; > @parameters = process_tags('', $tag_content); > print join('|', @parameters) . "\n\n"; > > $tag_content = <<"EOD"; > command > doug = > "test7" > julie = > "test8" > EOD > > @parameters = process_tags('', $tag_content); > print join('|', @parameters) . "\n\n"; > > $tag_content = 'command "doug"="test7" julie="test8"'; > @parameters = process_tags('', $tag_content); > print join('|', @parameters) . "\n\n"; > > # process_tags ######################################################### > > sub process_tags > { > > my $tag_parser = shift; > my $tag_content = shift; > > my $scalar; > my $array; > my $hash; > my $command; > my @parameters; > > print "\$tag_content: $tag_content\n"; > > while(pos($tag_content) < length($tag_content)) > { > > if($tag_content =~ /\G^\$([a-zA-Z0-9_:.]+)\s*/gc) > { > > $scalar = $1; > > } > elsif($tag_content =~ /\G^\@([a-zA-Z0-9_:.]+)\s*/gc) > { > > $array = $1; > > } > elsif($tag_content =~ /\G^\%([a-zA-Z0-9_:.]+)\s*/gc) > { > > $hash = $1; > > } > elsif($tag_content =~ /\G^([a-zA-Z0-9_:.]+)\s*/gc) > { > > $command = $1; > > } > elsif($tag_content =~ > / > \G # Start at last match pos. > ( > ([a-zA-Z0-9_:.]+) # A parameter. > (?: > \s*?=\s*? # '=' & optional WS. > $RE{delimited}{-delim=>'"'}{-esc=>'\\'}{-keep} # '"' > delimited > # value. > )?\s* > ) > /gcx # / Fix VIM syntax highlighting problem. > ) > { > > my $match = $1; > my $parameter = $2; > my $value = defined($5) ? $5 : 1; > > $value =~ s/\\"/"/g; > > push(@parameters, ($parameter, $value)); > > } > else > { > > die "$tag_content\n" . ' ' x pos($tag_content) . "^\n"; > > } > > } > > return @parameters; > > } > > # program output # > > $tag_content: $scalar param1 param2="\"test2\"" > param1|1|param2|"test2" > > $tag_content: @array format="'test3'" default_format="test4" > format|'test3'|default_format|test4 > > $tag_content: %hash format="'test5'" default_format="test6" > format|'test5'|default_format|test6 > > $tag_content: command > doug = > "test7" > julie = > "test8" > > doug|test7|julie|test8 > > $tag_content: command "doug"="test7" julie="test8" > command "doug"="test7" julie="test8" > ^ From doug.miles at bpxinternet.com Tue Dec 3 11:09:32 2002 From: doug.miles at bpxinternet.com (Doug Miles) Date: Thu Aug 5 00:16:52 2004 Subject: Phoenix.pm: Parameter parser References: <3DE3CF66.4080108@bpxinternet.com> <3DE3EBA2.2050303@bpxinternet.com> <3DEBC1B4.1080402@bpxinternet.com> Message-ID: <3DECE54C.1080601@bpxinternet.com> Hal Goldfarb wrote: > I highly approve of your coding style and modular breakdown (similar to > mine). Consistency is wonderful : ) Thanks. I tend to optimize for readability. From codewell at earthlink.net Tue Dec 3 18:00:32 2002 From: codewell at earthlink.net (Hal Goldfarb) Date: Thu Aug 5 00:16:52 2004 Subject: Phoenix.pm: Parameter parser In-Reply-To: <3DECE54C.1080601@bpxinternet.com> References: <3DE3CF66.4080108@bpxinternet.com> <3DECE54C.1080601@bpxinternet.com> Message-ID: On Tuesday 03 December 2002 10:09 am, Doug Miles wrote: > Hal Goldfarb wrote: > > I highly approve of your coding style and modular breakdown (similar to > > mine). Consistency is wonderful : ) > > Thanks. I tend to optimize for readability. > > Now, if we can just get ALL programmers to agree, maintenance positions would become attractive. Problem is that certain individuals seem to think that other formats are "cute", "artsy", or otherwise self-expressive. Architects have a single printing style (individuals all attempt to write the same way); engineers tend to use small block lettering (more coincidence, or possibly similar personality quirks); we could even argue that doctors share the same "chickenscratch" language, decodable only by pharmacists and some nurses. And don't even get me started on spelling, grammar, and organization. When 80% to 90% of the lifecycle of a system is spent in the maintenance phase, I feel that my rant is well warranted. This is one of the many reasons I feel that our field is so unprofessional. Thank you for listening to one more very frustrated unemployed software type. -Hal From scott at illogics.org Tue Dec 3 18:51:07 2002 From: scott at illogics.org (Scott Walters) Date: Thu Aug 5 00:16:52 2004 Subject: Phoenix.pm: Parameter parser In-Reply-To: from "Hal Goldfarb" at Dec 03, 2002 05:00:32 PM Message-ID: <200212040051.gB40p8Mk003180@slowass.net> This question is as old as programming. 3/4 of projects are considered failures - they are obsolete, hopelessly over budget, or the market has changed - before they are finished, and before the maintenance phase. Brain Foote, a well spoken and frequently published writer, wrote a "big ball of mud" pattern, off of http://www.laputan.org/foote/papers.html ... Java interests me, but I don't enjoy writing it. I've been not enjoying writing it for over 6 years now. I also know people who work in exclusively as their day job. * No language does everything, so eventually some sort of "idiom" develops. The "Gang of Four" book documents things that don't directly exist in the language and require shared knowledge to understand - idioms. * Developing abstraction in case it is needed in the future leads to code bloat and complexity above and beyond what is required by the actual problem. The logic of what is done and how it is done is burried in thousands of lines of "framework", making it painful to understand an application of this sort. * Making a heavy investment in applications development should not be done unless there is a worthy reward. Many Java shops take this backwards: they refuse to write throw away-scripts. Obviously the effort put into a program should be matched to the expected benefit. I've wittnessed horrible personally suffering on the part of programmers that were perfectly capable to changing the situation because of strict management policies about the creation of code. In Perl-land, throw-away scripts often evolve into something more, forming a new source of innovation. My proposed solution? * Programmers should be accountable for their own work for works for hire. Specifically, trust metrics should be in place to ferret out programmers that cause more harm than good on the whole. * Code should be provided without warrenty included, keeping the business of providing warrenties an open possibility. For this to work, either vendors would have to make the source available or include the warrenty, which is not the case now. Throw-away scripts should be market as exactly that, but should not be done away with because of notations that all code should be high quality. Joel, of http://www.joelonsoftware.com, states that it takes 10 years to write a mature application and gives numerous examples. I agree. That doesn't mean that we should banish software to "pre-alpha development" for 10 years before using it. * Code should be abstracted after the fact, and it should be abstracted again later, and then abstracted again, into as many layers as make sense. "Proactive abstracting" should be absolished. * Literate programming, as proposed by Knuth, needs to be resurrected. Programmers should make the effort to communicate the thought behind their algorithms - and they should write algorithms, not just code - and other programs should take time to learn it. Idioms should be spread this way. People should study the idioms of a language with the language (and damnit, they should read http://wiki.slowass.net). Perl culture is dead-on in some reguards, and horribly ignorant on other accounts. Java has a lot we can learn, but I feel very strongly that they shouldn't be eating our cake right now, and they are. -scott > > On Tuesday 03 December 2002 10:09 am, Doug Miles wrote: > > Hal Goldfarb wrote: > > > I highly approve of your coding style and modular breakdown (similar to > > > mine). Consistency is wonderful : ) > > > > Thanks. I tend to optimize for readability. > > > > > > Now, if we can just get ALL programmers to agree, maintenance positions would > become attractive. Problem is that certain individuals seem to think that > other formats are "cute", "artsy", or otherwise self-expressive. Architects > have a single printing style (individuals all attempt to write the same way); > engineers tend to use small block lettering (more coincidence, or possibly > similar personality quirks); we could even argue that doctors share the same > "chickenscratch" language, decodable only by pharmacists and some nurses. > And don't even get me started on spelling, grammar, and organization. > > When 80% to 90% of the lifecycle of a system is spent in the maintenance > phase, I feel that my rant is well warranted. > > This is one of the many reasons I feel that our field is so unprofessional. > Thank you for listening to one more very frustrated unemployed software type. > > -Hal > From codewell at earthlink.net Tue Dec 3 22:20:15 2002 From: codewell at earthlink.net (Hal Goldfarb) Date: Thu Aug 5 00:16:52 2004 Subject: Phoenix.pm: Parameter parser In-Reply-To: <200212040051.gB40p8Mk003180@slowass.net> References: <200212040051.gB40p8Mk003180@slowass.net> Message-ID: I had started to make a reply to this, but I decided to just surrender instead. I was wrong -- mainly to respond in the first place. Viva La Bad Code !!! Create a maintenance job today! -Hal On Tuesday 03 December 2002 05:51 pm, you wrote: > This question is as old as programming. > > 3/4 of projects are considered failures - they are obsolete, hopelessly > over budget, or the market has changed - before they are finished, and > before the maintenance phase. > > Brain Foote, a well spoken and frequently published writer, wrote > a "big ball of mud" pattern, off of > http://www.laputan.org/foote/papers.html ... > > Java interests me, but I don't enjoy writing it. I've been not enjoying > writing it for over 6 years now. I also know people who work in exclusively > as their day job. > > * No language does everything, so eventually some sort of "idiom" develops. > The "Gang of Four" book documents things that don't directly exist in the > language and require shared knowledge to understand - idioms. > > * Developing abstraction in case it is needed in the future leads to code > bloat and complexity above and beyond what is required by the actual > problem. The logic of what is done and how it is done is burried in > thousands of lines of "framework", making it painful to understand an > application of this sort. > > * Making a heavy investment in applications development should not be done > unless there is a worthy reward. Many Java shops take this backwards: they > refuse to write throw away-scripts. Obviously the effort put into a program > should be matched to the expected benefit. I've wittnessed horrible > personally suffering on the part of programmers that were perfectly capable > to changing the situation because of strict management policies about the > creation of code. In Perl-land, throw-away scripts often evolve into > something more, forming a new source of innovation. > > My proposed solution? > > * Programmers should be accountable for their own work for works for hire. > Specifically, trust metrics should be in place to ferret out programmers > that cause more harm than good on the whole. > > * Code should be provided without warrenty included, keeping the business > of providing warrenties an open possibility. For this to work, either > vendors would have to make the source available or include the warrenty, > which is not the case now. Throw-away scripts should be > market as exactly that, but should not be done away with because of > notations that all code should be high quality. Joel, of > http://www.joelonsoftware.com, states that it takes 10 years to write a > mature application and gives numerous examples. I agree. That doesn't mean > that we should banish software to "pre-alpha development" for 10 years > before using it. > > * Code should be abstracted after the fact, and it should be abstracted > again later, and then abstracted again, into as many layers as make sense. > "Proactive abstracting" should be absolished. > > * Literate programming, as proposed by Knuth, needs to be resurrected. > Programmers should make the effort to communicate the thought behind their > algorithms - and they should write algorithms, not just code - and other > programs should take time to learn it. Idioms should be spread this way. > People should study the idioms of a language with the language (and damnit, > they should read http://wiki.slowass.net). > > Perl culture is dead-on in some reguards, and horribly ignorant on > other accounts. Java has a lot we can learn, but I feel very strongly > that they shouldn't be eating our cake right now, and they are. > > -scott > > > On Tuesday 03 December 2002 10:09 am, Doug Miles wrote: > > > Hal Goldfarb wrote: > > > > I highly approve of your coding style and modular breakdown (similar > > > > to mine). Consistency is wonderful : ) > > > > > > Thanks. I tend to optimize for readability. > > > > > > > > > > Now, if we can just get ALL programmers to agree, maintenance positions > > would become attractive. Problem is that certain individuals seem to > > think that other formats are "cute", "artsy", or otherwise > > self-expressive. Architects have a single printing style (individuals > > all attempt to write the same way); engineers tend to use small block > > lettering (more coincidence, or possibly similar personality quirks); we > > could even argue that doctors share the same "chickenscratch" language, > > decodable only by pharmacists and some nurses. And don't even get me > > started on spelling, grammar, and organization. > > > > When 80% to 90% of the lifecycle of a system is spent in the maintenance > > phase, I feel that my rant is well warranted. > > > > This is one of the many reasons I feel that our field is so > > unprofessional. Thank you for listening to one more very frustrated > > unemployed software type. > > > > -Hal From scott at illogics.org Wed Dec 4 00:42:48 2002 From: scott at illogics.org (Scott Walters) Date: Thu Aug 5 00:16:52 2004 Subject: Phoenix.pm: Parameter parser In-Reply-To: from "Hal Goldfarb" at Dec 03, 2002 09:20:15 PM Message-ID: <200212040642.gB46gnYD005779@slowass.net> No! Please post your reply - I'd like to see it, and like I said, it's an open question. I'm also guilty of playing devils advocate in attempt to provoke you. I've been thinking about the topic a lot lately, and misery loves company. My goal is to engage you, not to disprove you ;) I've been stuck maintaining horrible code, trying to iron bugs out of something that was never thought out or organized in the first place. I could tell horror stories... Motorola has provided me with more than a few =) Hoare on APL: "...I conclude that there are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple there are obviously no deficiencies and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies." I did say that Perlers can learn a lot from the Java folks. I just think that the Java folks have some things to learn from us - I'm picking on the Java folks as being hardcore "clean code" OO freaks. Idioms save complexity, time and typing, but also lead to unreadable code. The Perl Cookbook has become part of Perl as written language at the cost of excluding newbies from being able to read most Perl. Is this good or bad? Should Perl be less expressive? How much behavior would be better as part of a language standard library rather than in core? Novices benefit from the ease of being able to write Perl without worry of defining interfaces, classes, types, and so forth, but because it is easier to pick up Perl than a hardcore OO language, more novices pick Perl, giving Perl a bad name by all of the newbie code left laying around. Should Perl make it more difficult to write amature code, pushing users towards things like strict? This is a commonly argued idea. I'm sorry... phoenix-pm-list is pleasanlty free of the sort of ongoing rant you see on P5P and parrot internals... I shouldn't pollulte it. I'm still developing my opinions, and I'm over eager for feedback on them. Thank you for suffering my views - if you have any counter points or insights, I shall enjoy hearing them. -scott > > I had started to make a reply to this, but I decided to just surrender > instead. I was wrong -- mainly to respond in the first place. > > Viva La Bad Code !!! Create a maintenance job today! > > -Hal > > On Tuesday 03 December 2002 05:51 pm, you wrote: > > This question is as old as programming. > > > > 3/4 of projects are considered failures - they are obsolete, hopelessly > > over budget, or the market has changed - before they are finished, and > > before the maintenance phase. > > > > Brain Foote, a well spoken and frequently published writer, wrote > > a "big ball of mud" pattern, off of > > http://www.laputan.org/foote/papers.html ... > > > > Java interests me, but I don't enjoy writing it. I've been not enjoying > > writing it for over 6 years now. I also know people who work in exclusively > > as their day job. > > > > * No language does everything, so eventually some sort of "idiom" develops. > > The "Gang of Four" book documents things that don't directly exist in the > > language and require shared knowledge to understand - idioms. > > > > * Developing abstraction in case it is needed in the future leads to code > > bloat and complexity above and beyond what is required by the actual > > problem. The logic of what is done and how it is done is burried in > > thousands of lines of "framework", making it painful to understand an > > application of this sort. > > > > * Making a heavy investment in applications development should not be done > > unless there is a worthy reward. Many Java shops take this backwards: they > > refuse to write throw away-scripts. Obviously the effort put into a program > > should be matched to the expected benefit. I've wittnessed horrible > > personally suffering on the part of programmers that were perfectly capable > > to changing the situation because of strict management policies about the > > creation of code. In Perl-land, throw-away scripts often evolve into > > something more, forming a new source of innovation. > > > > My proposed solution? > > > > * Programmers should be accountable for their own work for works for hire. > > Specifically, trust metrics should be in place to ferret out programmers > > that cause more harm than good on the whole. > > > > * Code should be provided without warrenty included, keeping the business > > of providing warrenties an open possibility. For this to work, either > > vendors would have to make the source available or include the warrenty, > > which is not the case now. Throw-away scripts should be > > market as exactly that, but should not be done away with because of > > notations that all code should be high quality. Joel, of > > http://www.joelonsoftware.com, states that it takes 10 years to write a > > mature application and gives numerous examples. I agree. That doesn't mean > > that we should banish software to "pre-alpha development" for 10 years > > before using it. > > > > * Code should be abstracted after the fact, and it should be abstracted > > again later, and then abstracted again, into as many layers as make sense. > > "Proactive abstracting" should be absolished. > > > > * Literate programming, as proposed by Knuth, needs to be resurrected. > > Programmers should make the effort to communicate the thought behind their > > algorithms - and they should write algorithms, not just code - and other > > programs should take time to learn it. Idioms should be spread this way. > > People should study the idioms of a language with the language (and damnit, > > they should read http://wiki.slowass.net). > > > > Perl culture is dead-on in some reguards, and horribly ignorant on > > other accounts. Java has a lot we can learn, but I feel very strongly > > that they shouldn't be eating our cake right now, and they are. > > > > -scott > > > > > On Tuesday 03 December 2002 10:09 am, Doug Miles wrote: > > > > Hal Goldfarb wrote: > > > > > I highly approve of your coding style and modular breakdown (similar > > > > > to mine). Consistency is wonderful : ) > > > > > > > > Thanks. I tend to optimize for readability. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, if we can just get ALL programmers to agree, maintenance positions > > > would become attractive. Problem is that certain individuals seem to > > > think that other formats are "cute", "artsy", or otherwise > > > self-expressive. Architects have a single printing style (individuals > > > all attempt to write the same way); engineers tend to use small block > > > lettering (more coincidence, or possibly similar personality quirks); we > > > could even argue that doctors share the same "chickenscratch" language, > > > decodable only by pharmacists and some nurses. And don't even get me > > > started on spelling, grammar, and organization. > > > > > > When 80% to 90% of the lifecycle of a system is spent in the maintenance > > > phase, I feel that my rant is well warranted. > > > > > > This is one of the many reasons I feel that our field is so > > > unprofessional. Thank you for listening to one more very frustrated > > > unemployed software type. > > > > > > -Hal > From codewell at earthlink.net Wed Dec 4 04:37:56 2002 From: codewell at earthlink.net (Hal Goldfarb) Date: Thu Aug 5 00:16:52 2004 Subject: Phoenix.pm: Parameter parser In-Reply-To: <200212040642.gB46gnYD005779@slowass.net> References: <200212040642.gB46gnYD005779@slowass.net> Message-ID: On Tuesday 03 December 2002 11:42 pm, you wrote: > No! Please post your reply - I'd like to see it, and like I said, it's an > open question. > Well, OK. But I am afraid I will not be quoting any famous or infamous people on anything. Anything said here is strictly my own (possibly) (OK, probably) ignorant ideas. I am a secret champion of regulation and licensing for our industry, which squarely puts me in the minority I think. After all, if most people in the industry agreed with me, it would have been a done deal by now. Yes, I agree using "strict" and other pragmas in Perl is probably a good idea for many reasons, although I doubt that will do anything for Perl's built-in obfuscation. I wrote 1 entire C++ program once about 12 years ago, got a terrible pounding headache, and promptly cleaned all of my disk space of any trace of that awful language. But I always liked things like objects, modules, packages, and other methods of segregating code along (hopefully) logical lines. I like Perl because it has an extremely simple OO mechanism compared to that horror better known as C++. I think we agree on this much, no? My real issue is not with programming, ongoing religious/philosophical wars, or the multitude of standards you are supposed to follow these days. I simply hate the field of software and I.T. Please brace yourself for this next part; it is brutal and unforgiving. Having worked with computers and software for about 20 years now, my overall impression is that it is a lot like working in a giant kindergarten. All kinds of people running around screaming and yelling, using words they really don't understand, calling others names and ruining them by making up stories about them, fingerpainting with shell scripts and basic and calling that art, having great big embarrassing accidents that are excused because "they just don't know any better", and probably even more analogies than I can think of at the moment. When I was in business school, I was selected for an interview with one of the Big 8 accounting firms, and they offered me the position. It paid rather well, too, I might add. I had a class conflict so I did not take it (although later, my professor told me I could switch to his other section, damn it. Oh well). Now here I was a first-time nobody, with no professional experience, and absolutely no real background in either accounting or business. And I am offered a job. Why? Because the interviewers acknowledged how smart I was. (Sorry, I have to admit I am pretty fucking smart, book-wise I mean). They also could tell that I was capable of doing the job. I quit business school because I really did not like it much, and I had always had a liking to computing (I had had a chance a few years earlier to write FORTRAN 4 and watfiv programs at Technion, which is one of Israel's top schools). After transferring to another university, I started a career in computer programming. Here I was, again, a first-timer, know-nothing student. I applied for a position as a "consultant", after seeing other CS students doing so, thinking that I knew about as much as they did. I did, in fact, know as much as they did. In fact, one day when finishing up helping several other students in the computer lab, I looked up to find that a queue had formed!!! Imagine my surprise as they told me I had been more helpful to them than the "consultants", people who were paid far more than my meager job as a drug store clerk. One consultant, with whom until then I had had a good relationship with, stepped into the lab and screamed at me: "Hal Goldfarb! You are NOT the consultant, I am! Leave, now, or I'll have you thrown out. All of you, back to your seats, or see me if you have a problem". Or something very close to that. I tried to argue with her, but there was no getting a word in edgewise. I explained that I didn't even KNOW that these people were lining up for help. Needless to say, I begged the computer department manager for a consulting position (although I wonder why I was not recommended instead). They told me there were no openings, while I watched literally dozens of other CS students get consulting positions, some of them not lasting for more than a few days. Gee I wonder why. I did get a good job with a company shortly after finishing up school, which I was thoroughly sick of at that point. But most of the positions I got were either lousy money, or I didn't get to do coding, or I was forced to work for a complete moron. Later, when I started consulting (about 10 years ago), I had to work with placement and recruiting people who had no clue what I do for a living. My career in computing is very sad. I have had to settle for working with utter morons and idiots. Worse, some of the supervisors I had were worse than that, some of them were outright liars, backstabbers, and ghouls. One supervisor I had caused me to get a case of shingles; she would not let me finish my doctor-ordered quarantine. And there was a pregnant lady working with us at the time. She and a certain SA continually changed the OS level of the Unix box I worked on so I could not complete my work (semaphore bug in the OS, ever heard of this? Ran into similar problem a few years later in another place). NOW ... the point of all this. What if, what if ... there was testing, licensing, and regulation of the software/IT industry? Wouldn't that just be horrible? Microsoft and Sun certifications are entirely inappropriate, because their exams and qualifications are designed to promote their commercial agendae. Now, the IEEE Computer Society does have a test, but having looked over some of the sample questions on their site, I cannot say that this would be the consummate test of ability, but then again, maybe it is the best thing out there so far. Every other area of engineering has testing, licensing and regulation. Architecture (AIA), Accounting (AICPA), Medicine (AMA), Law (ABA), and so on, all have an examination and licensing process. Some fields even have continuing education and retesting requirements as well. The most common argument I have heard so far about my fascist plan for the I.T. professional world is that it would somehow impede progress and creativity in the field. As far as progress, seems to me that engineering, medicine, and accounting are all making very good progress. As far as creativity, yeah, that might be impeded a bit. Or maybe a lot, an unbearable lot. Perhaps once all the artsy-fartsy was removed from programming, we could actually start creating maintainable code that meets the needs of users. If you want "COOL GRAPHICS MAN!" then maybe you should consider a career as an artist of some type. If you want to be sloppy and arrogant toward customers, you could go work for a car dealership, they specialize in that sort of thing. I didn't suddenly become less smart when I switched from accounting to computers. My personality did not somehow become less tolerable, or my looks less attractive. There is something fundamentally different between the fields. Something fundamentally less mature, less professional, and with less integrity. Recently, I began taking classes at community colleges here in the valley, thinking there might be something else I would like to do instead. One area I am exploring is paralegalism. Now, here is a field which is young, about 30 years old, and already about half its membership is pushing for professional qualification. Another area I am studying is home inspection, a field only 25 years old and has had regulation and licensing (in some states) for some time, with expansion coming in other states soon. AZ is one of 2 states requiring Home Inspection licensing, just in this last year. The national organization has been providing credentials for many years now. I am not claiming, at all, that somehow examining, licensing, and regulation (EL&R, for short, OK?) will solve all the problems facing us, particularly with regards to employment, but moreso in regards to producing maintainable code. No system is perfect, but we don't got no system, so it can't work, can it? Back to kindergarten. Even without EL&R, there are things we could be doing already. Like demanding that recruiters and HR people have at least 5 years, preferably 10 years, working in the field doing actual work. We could demand that they keep job ads SHORT, avoiding a ramble of skills lists, kind of the same way they would like to see our resumes. And know how to sPeLl and use ReAl GoOd GraMMar. Or maybe even proofread copy before posting to a mailing list. Just like they have to sift through 400 resumes to find the one candidate, I have to read hundreds of job ads every day to find one job. Fair is fair, don't you think? This would be a major step in the right direction. And send those kiddies working for recruiters and temp agencies back to Burger King and Pizza Hut. Especially now, with so many qualified software people looking for work! Ready for flaming, SIR!!! -Hal From scott at illogics.org Wed Dec 4 07:49:12 2002 From: scott at illogics.org (Scott Walters) Date: Thu Aug 5 00:16:52 2004 Subject: Phoenix.pm: Programmer-standardized testing - was Parameter parser In-Reply-To: from "Hal Goldfarb" at Dec 04, 2002 03:37:56 AM Message-ID: <200212041349.gB4DnETD008621@slowass.net> > Well, OK. But I am afraid I will not be quoting any famous or infamous > people on anything. Anything said here is strictly my own (possibly) (OK, > probably) ignorant ideas. > > I am a secret champion of regulation and licensing for our industry, which You've just been discovered - your secret is out ;) I've edited your post. Anyone reading this reply should first read the original. Sorry for the extremely long reply. Before I say anything else, I agree with you. As you said, its a good start. I see the problem being much larger, as you hinted at, and have some very specific ideas on the scope and nature of it ;) Sorry for the lack of proofreading and spelling. > squarely puts me in the minority I think. After all, if most people in the > industry agreed with me, it would have been a done deal by now. Good programmers are always burnt by bad programmers. One of my comments in my last reply was "trust metrics be used to ferret out people causing more harm than good" or something to that effect. In addition to bad programmers pushing down good programmers, I've noticed lazy programmers blocking hard working programmers and trying to keep company/client expectations low. The lazy and the stupid are threatened by the hardworking and smart. Once again, I could tell stories. > Yes, I agree using "strict" and other pragmas in Perl is probably a good idea > for many reasons, although I doubt that will do anything for Perl's built-in > obfuscation. I wrote 1 entire C++ program once about 12 years ago, got a > terrible pounding headache, and promptly cleaned all of my disk space of any > trace of that awful language. But I always liked things like objects, > modules, packages, and other methods of segregating code along (hopefully) > logical lines. I like Perl because it has an extremely simple OO mechanism > compared to that horror better known as C++. I think we agree on this much, > no? Haha, yes, I agree C++ is horrid. I'm not entirely happy with Perl's implementation, but Perl steers programmers the right direction. There are a good number of Java jobs - I've attended a JUG meeting now, and by rough survey, 90% of them are employed or busy consulting. In contrast, I think Phoenix Perl Mongers is hanging somewhere around 50%. I think I've been to meetings where Doug was the only one with a job ;) I seem to be the only one saying this, but Perl is experiencing a backlash for being cryptic, terse, idiomatic, and many peoples first language. Code is seen as an investment, and an investment that is not to be made lightly, and managers hearing "this is aweful... I have to rewrite this" one too many times has Perl down for the count. The same thing is hastening C++'s fall to Java. Javas poor performance and lack of selection of compilers, as well as lack of ports are unimportant compared to code quality. > ... > What if, what if ... there was testing, licensing, and regulation of the > software/IT industry? Wouldn't that just be horrible? Microsoft and Sun > certifications are entirely inappropriate, because their exams and > qualifications are designed to promote their commercial agendae. Now, the > IEEE Computer Society does have a test, but having looked over some of the > sample questions on their site, I cannot say that this would be the > consummate test of ability, but then again, maybe it is the best thing out > there so far. Every other area of engineering has testing, licensing and > regulation. Architecture (AIA), Accounting (AICPA), Medicine (AMA), Law > (ABA), and so on, all have an examination and licensing process. Some > fields even have continuing education and retesting requirements as well. The field is so broad and so many levels of experience are tolerated it would be difficult. Microsoft having the market cornered on certifications (and it seems MCSE is the best known cert) is a force in itself. Because of the low standards established by lazy but certified "professionals" that dominate IT today, employers see hiring more programmers as the solution - not hiring better programmers. The demand for quantity requires that prices also be lowered - establishing stringant education and certification requirements would drive up salaries - something employers don't want in their glorious ignorance. Per my first round of suggestions, I see the crux of the problem as programmer and employer dysfunction and ignorance. > The most common argument I have heard so far about my fascist plan for the > I.T. professional world is that it would somehow impede progress and > creativity in the field. As far as progress, seems to me that engineering, It wouldn't be my objection. Engineering, medicine, structural architecture, urban planning, metalurgy and every other field has R&D and production with a clear distinction between them. In fact, only people who do well on the production side are invited into the R&D side. Accomplished professionals who know the field well on both practical and theorical levels have the rare opporutnity to participate in developing and testing potential next generation technologies. These technologies are only deployed if they can prove themselves before being put into production - not if they go into production and don't cause too many problems as is the case in software. Computers make basement dabbling easy. History has shown that sciences start off as things that can be done in the basement and then scale in complexity beyond that. When the entire software landscape is defined by interactions across Passport, software signed by Microsoft and run on Palladium certified hardware, composed of distributed WebServices, the days of basement dabbling in computers might be over. You can still extract iodine from seaweed, or make foul smelling compounds, but these are seen as amature, irrelavent dabblings in chemistry. Any real chemistry work is done with molecular modeling and cutting edge biochemical theory, and is done exclusively by major drug companies. To press this analogy, in 20 years people will still be able to write Perl on their home computer, but I imagine that they won't be able to do anything that anyone cares about, anything constructive or useful, anything cutting edge, or anything interesting. In this respect, I hail Microsoft as the *only* visionary on the computer scene. IBM's sciences and GNU's hurculean efforts will ultimately be insignificant. > medicine, and accounting are all making very good progress. As far as > creativity, yeah, that might be impeded a bit. Or maybe a lot, an unbearable > lot. Perhaps once all the artsy-fartsy was removed from programming, we > could actually start creating maintainable code that meets the needs of > users. If you want "COOL GRAPHICS MAN!" then maybe you should consider a > career as an artist of some type. If you want to be sloppy and arrogant > toward customers, you could go work for a car dealership, they specialize in > that sort of thing. The laziness effect trickles down. Companies find it easier to be creative about selling a bad product than creative about making a good product. Once again, there are status quo issues. > ... > fields. Something fundamentally less mature, less professional, and with > less integrity. The "Voodoo" factor - the mysteriousness and complexity of computers - keeps employers from developing effective sane strategies for dealing with employees, and makes it possible for scumbags to keep their position in the status quo. The field maturing would challenge the present status quo. Not everyone with a job is evil of course, but I've witnessed large scale abuse more than once. Its a large part of the reason that Motorola is bleeding right now, though it could be argued that management created the problem. > ... > I am exploring is paralegalism. Now, here is a field which is young, about > 30 years old, and already about half its membership is pushing for > professional qualification. Another area I am studying is home inspection, a > field only 25 years old and has had regulation and licensing (in some states) > for some time, with expansion coming in other states soon. AZ is one of 2 > states requiring Home Inspection licensing, just in this last year. The > national organization has been providing credentials for many years now. > > Even without EL&R, there are things we could be doing already. Like > demanding that recruiters and HR people have at least 5 years, preferably 10 > years, working in the field doing actual work. We could demand that they > keep job ads SHORT, avoiding a ramble of skills lists, kind of the same way > they would like to see our resumes. And know how to sPeLl and use ReAl GoOd > GraMMar. Or maybe even proofread copy before posting to a mailing list. > Just like they have to sift through 400 resumes to find the one candidate, I > have to read hundreds of job ads every day to find one job. Fair is fair, > don't you think? This would be a major step in the right direction. And > send those kiddies working for recruiters and temp agencies back to Burger > King and Pizza Hut. Especially now, with so many qualified software people > looking for work! Ahhhh, but the recruiters are the shirfers (sp? can't find it on dict.org). They make sense of the Voodoo for employers. That puts them in a very powerful position. I ran into an old coworker of mine at a trade show. He was standing behind the booth of a software company that shipped programming tasks over seas where they were billed at $30/hour, $20-$25 of that going to the programmer. Looking at elance.com, American independents are going for much cheapter than that - below $10. When I asked him why they weren't selling American labor, he laughed and explained that companies could get inexpensive American labor themselves, but they need a shirfer, and they *want* to need a shirfer. The move to foreign labor isn't about saving money on labor - its about getting a whole new _class_ of recruiters to lead them through the jungles of farming out all responsibility for programming projects. Companies don't trust programmers - not even good ones - especially good ones - so they *have* to find shirfers to trust that take care of that pesky trust thing. Recruiters for American talent are hurting badly right now - companies are disguested with them and blame them for the programmers failure (neglecting the possibility of failure in management, of course - pride blinds). I'd argue that someone just needs to write a good project management book that management types can understand, but it was done years ago - The Mythical Man Month. Management has absolutely no excuse. > Ready for flaming, SIR!!! I have some points to add where I feel that I understand the problem, but I don't disagree. I think we agree on the same basic problem - companies need to have a reliable way of finding and working with programming talent. I favor certification in the sense you describe it - vender neutral. I also favor another unpopular cause - unionization. Most unions are obnoxiously self destructive, ignorant of the forces of world trade, and just plain rotten, but the basic idea holds promise. IEEE is a good example of what an organization representing people in technology can accomplish. They're impartial; statements they make carry a lot of weight, representing the programming populace (and electrical engineer populace of course) better than perhaps any other organisation. They promote ongoing education. They publish specifications for what college courses should cover. The question of worker benefits is a lesser one, in my mind. However, the Union angle has bearing on communication issues with reguard to programmer/employer relationshiops. Things like Motorola should never be allowed to happen. Having an impartial body explain in no uncertain terms why workplace politics or structure inherently prevents work from being done would benefit both management and programmers. Programmers get job security and respect, management gets their product. There aren't workplace safety issues like in other industries, but "workplace dynamics" has proven to be a huge problem in IT. > My career in computing is very sad. I have had to settle for working with > utter morons and idiots. Worse, some of the supervisors I had were worse > than that, some of them were outright liars, backstabbers, and ghouls. One > supervisor I had caused me to get a case of shingles; she would not let me > finish my doctor-ordered quarantine. And there was a pregnant lady working > with us at the time. She and a certain SA continually changed the OS level > of the Unix box I worked on so I could not complete my work (semaphore bug in > the OS, ever heard of this? Ran into similar problem a few years later in > another place). My career as well. I had one good job in college, working for essentially a business incubator company that was all tech people, who were very knowledgable *and* had the social smarts to apply it. I never should have left there and move to AZ - I've said that a thousand times. I kick myself every day. -scott From wlindley at wlindley.com Wed Dec 4 08:19:16 2002 From: wlindley at wlindley.com (William Lindley) Date: Thu Aug 5 00:16:52 2004 Subject: Phoenix.pm: Parameter parser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Gut reaction: Licensing computer professionals is about as useful as licensing artists, licensing authors, or herding cats... unworkable and impractical. \\/ -- Your poetic license is hereby revoked. From scott at illogics.org Wed Dec 4 08:32:02 2002 From: scott at illogics.org (Scott Walters) Date: Thu Aug 5 00:16:52 2004 Subject: Phoenix.pm: Parameter parser In-Reply-To: from "William Lindley" at Dec 04, 2002 07:19:16 AM Message-ID: <200212041432.gB4EW3Za008865@slowass.net> Code is a more tangiable asset to a company than prose, poetry, paint or felines unless they happen to be in that industry. If the industry ever realizes how much money is lost to I-learned-PHP-yesterday-so-how-I'm- a-programmer programmers, they'll scream for governmental regulation. A shirfer is a native mountaineer who takes tourists mountain climbing. Tourists entrust their lives to them and are sometimes rewarded with a safe trip home. Its become a sort of slang for someone who readily accepts your money to make something safe that is inheriently unsafe, which of course cannot be done. The make something safe part, that is, not the take your money part. -scott > Gut reaction: > > Licensing computer professionals is about as useful as licensing artists, > licensing authors, or herding cats... > > unworkable and impractical. > > \\/ > > -- Your poetic license is hereby revoked. > > From scytale at techie.com Wed Dec 4 10:00:12 2002 From: scytale at techie.com (Roger Vasquez) Date: Thu Aug 5 00:16:52 2004 Subject: Phoenix.pm: Parameter parser Message-ID: <20021204160012.51941.qmail@mail.com> Good rant. Lot of good points in it. I think what you are talking about is more in the lines of an "Association" and not a "Union". (ie. American Bar Association vs Teamster) Which is more of a flavor of a self regulating "professional" organization which I would also like to see implemented. PS: Like you I am also evaluating continuing in this field. -- __________________________________________________________ Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup One click access to the Top Search Engines http://www.exactsearchbar.com/mailcom From codewell at earthlink.net Wed Dec 4 12:37:33 2002 From: codewell at earthlink.net (Hal Goldfarb) Date: Thu Aug 5 00:16:52 2004 Subject: Phoenix.pm: EL&R for computer field Message-ID: (Attempting to keep my note short this time ... ) > The field is so broad and so many levels of experience are tolerated it > would be difficult. You also made some positive remarks about IEEE, all of which I agree with. You overlooked the fact that engineering is also very broad, and IEEE has a division for each area. I am confident IEEE could do the job, and do it extremely well. But first it means commandeering the field away from corporate interests and then taking the lead. > Ahhhh, but the recruiters are the shirfers (sp? can't find it on dict.org). > They make sense of the Voodoo for employers. That puts them in a very > powerful position. "They" -- meaning the recruiters? Are you kidding? They cannot even make sense of job postings and resumes most of the time. Couple that up with their lack of experience in the field and zip technical knowledge, and that they cannot spell worth dirt ... and you have a dangerous situation. The only "Voodoo" most recruiters really know seems to be having the inside scoop before we do. > Companies don't trust programmers - > not even good ones - especially good ones - so they *have* to find shirfers > to trust that take care of that pesky trust thing. Recruiters for American > talent are hurting badly right now - companies are disguested with them and > blame them for the programmers failure (neglecting the possibility of failure > in management, of course - pride blinds). Companies are disgusted (sp!!!) with recruiters and are blaming them for the bad talent they recruit? Maybe there is an albeit dark, but ever-existent justice somewhere out there. > Licensing computer professionals is about as useful as licensing artists, > licensing authors, or herding cats... Artists and authors are artists. (I don't know about herding cats, is that a viable trade?) Do you really think information technology is in the same category with art? Well, maybe you are right. After all, there are all of those "COOL GRAPHICS MAN!" If you don't mind too much, I'd like to keep the science in computer science and leave artwork to artists. Again, I did originally say: > If you want "COOL GRAPHICS MAN!" then maybe you should consider a career as > an artist of some type. If you think you would feel bored in this new, dry (maybe dull to you) world of professional software development and maintenance, then feel free to split. I, OTOH, plan to split if things do NOT change in this field. Thanks, that burned less than I expected. -Hal From codewell at earthlink.net Wed Dec 4 12:51:55 2002 From: codewell at earthlink.net (Hal Goldfarb) Date: Thu Aug 5 00:16:52 2004 Subject: Phoenix.pm: New thread: Spelling, Grammar, and other annoying stuff Message-ID: PLEASE! I love chatting, but I am getting tired of all the tons of spelling and grammar errors. This is another thing that compromises any hope of a professional image for this field. We all need to keep on each other about written presentations. Every day, I see this in newspapers, TV (especially the crawlers on the news networks), and on web pages. It is particularly disappointing to see this lack of professionalism on premier web sites, particularly the ones who purport to be experts in some field or another. I hate: * Spelling errors. * Grammatical errors. * Run-on sentences. * Misused words. * Lack of understanding of difference between "its" and "it's" (first is a possessive pronoun; second is an abbreviation for "it is"). * Lack of commas. * Too many commas. * Using period where there should be a semicolon. * Using "but" or "and" when the opposite is meant. There are moore ,and, I canot thimk of then know. Its taken to long to decypher whant I read, and sometimes I half to re-read a think more than onec to get it. Big waist of my thyme. Sinserelly, Hall From SHight at chw.edu Wed Dec 4 12:47:30 2002 From: SHight at chw.edu (Hight, Steve - Perot) Date: Thu Aug 5 00:16:52 2004 Subject: Phoenix.pm: New thread: Spelling, Grammar, and other annoying stuff Message-ID: <091D4E1AA68D44449E1CCA8E93A0C38F014CFBF3@aznv-msg-01> Hal, you missspeeled "more". -----Original Message----- From: Hal Goldfarb [mailto:codewell@earthlink.net] Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 10:52 AM To: phoenix-pm-list@happyfunball.pm.org Subject: Phoenix.pm: New thread: Spelling, Grammar, and other annoying stuff PLEASE! I love chatting, but I am getting tired of all the tons of spelling and grammar errors. This is another thing that compromises any hope of a professional image for this field. We all need to keep on each other about written presentations. Every day, I see this in newspapers, TV (especially the crawlers on the news networks), and on web pages. It is particularly disappointing to see this lack of professionalism on premier web sites, particularly the ones who purport to be experts in some field or another. I hate: * Spelling errors. * Grammatical errors. * Run-on sentences. * Misused words. * Lack of understanding of difference between "its" and "it's" (first is a possessive pronoun; second is an abbreviation for "it is"). * Lack of commas. * Too many commas. * Using period where there should be a semicolon. * Using "but" or "and" when the opposite is meant. There are moore ,and, I canot thimk of then know. Its taken to long to decypher whant I read, and sometimes I half to re-read a think more than onec to get it. Big waist of my thyme. Sinserelly, Hall From codewell at earthlink.net Wed Dec 4 13:19:53 2002 From: codewell at earthlink.net (Hal Goldfarb) Date: Thu Aug 5 00:16:53 2004 Subject: Phoenix.pm: New thread: Spelling, Grammar, and other annoying stuff In-Reply-To: <091D4E1AA68D44449E1CCA8E93A0C38F014CFBF3@aznv-msg-01> References: <091D4E1AA68D44449E1CCA8E93A0C38F014CFBF3@aznv-msg-01> Message-ID: Good, Steve! Can you find the other errors? -h On Wednesday 04 December 2002 11:47 am, you wrote: > Hal, you missspeeled "more". > > -----Original Message----- > From: Hal Goldfarb [mailto:codewell@earthlink.net] > Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 10:52 AM > To: phoenix-pm-list@happyfunball.pm.org > Subject: Phoenix.pm: New thread: Spelling, Grammar, and other annoying > stuff > > > > PLEASE! I love chatting, but I am getting tired of all the tons of > spelling > > and grammar errors. This is another thing that compromises any hope of a > professional image for this field. We all need to keep on each other about > written presentations. > > Every day, I see this in newspapers, TV (especially the crawlers on the > news > > networks), and on web pages. It is particularly disappointing to see this > lack of professionalism on premier web sites, particularly the ones who > purport to be experts in some field or another. > > I hate: > > * Spelling errors. > * Grammatical errors. > * Run-on sentences. > * Misused words. > * Lack of understanding of difference between "its" and "it's" (first is a > possessive pronoun; second is an abbreviation for "it is"). > * Lack of commas. > * Too many commas. > * Using period where there should be a semicolon. > * Using "but" or "and" when the opposite is meant. > > There are moore ,and, I canot thimk of then know. Its taken to long to > decypher whant I read, and sometimes I half to re-read a think more than > onec > to get it. Big waist of my thyme. > > Sinserelly, > Hall From cocoadev at earthlink.net Wed Dec 4 14:08:06 2002 From: cocoadev at earthlink.net (Harold Martin) Date: Thu Aug 5 00:16:53 2004 Subject: Phoenix.pm: New thread: Spelling, Grammar, and other annoying stuff In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1A7BDA18-07C4-11D7-956E-003065CFC746@earthlink.net> Geez, how many can I count? canot -> cannot thimk -> think then -> them to -> too decypher -> decipher whant -> what half -> have a -> and onec -> once waist -> waste thyme -> time Sinserelly -> I had to copy and paste some of that stuff to get the misspellings "right"! i theenk wee git yoor poynt. Harold On Wednesday, December 4, 2002, at 12:19 PM, Hal Goldfarb wrote: > > Good, Steve! Can you find the other errors? > > -h > > > On Wednesday 04 December 2002 11:47 am, you wrote: >> Hal, you missspeeled "more". >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Hal Goldfarb [mailto:codewell@earthlink.net] >> Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 10:52 AM >> To: phoenix-pm-list@happyfunball.pm.org >> Subject: Phoenix.pm: New thread: Spelling, Grammar, and other annoying >> stuff >> >> >> >> PLEASE! I love chatting, but I am getting tired of all the tons of >> spelling >> >> and grammar errors. This is another thing that compromises any hope >> of a >> professional image for this field. We all need to keep on each other >> about >> written presentations. >> >> Every day, I see this in newspapers, TV (especially the crawlers on >> the >> news >> >> networks), and on web pages. It is particularly disappointing to see >> this >> lack of professionalism on premier web sites, particularly the ones >> who >> purport to be experts in some field or another. >> >> I hate: >> >> * Spelling errors. >> * Grammatical errors. >> * Run-on sentences. >> * Misused words. >> * Lack of understanding of difference between "its" and "it's" (first >> is a >> possessive pronoun; second is an abbreviation for "it is"). >> * Lack of commas. >> * Too many commas. >> * Using period where there should be a semicolon. >> * Using "but" or "and" when the opposite is meant. >> >> There are moore ,and, I canot thimk of then know. Its taken to long >> to >> decypher whant I read, and sometimes I half to re-read a think more >> than >> onec >> to get it. Big waist of my thyme. >> >> Sinserelly, >> Hall > From Jeremy.Elston at schwab.com Wed Dec 4 15:16:11 2002 From: Jeremy.Elston at schwab.com (Elston, Jeremy) Date: Thu Aug 5 00:16:53 2004 Subject: Phoenix.pm: Programmer-standardized testing - was Parameter p arser Message-ID: <8D3F682B0610D411874A00508B6FA8881C5F8C43@n2011pmx.nt.schwab.com> Guess it is time to open my mouth ... Wide enough to allow my foot to be shoved in it later! Note that this contains quotes from various authors which I did not individually identify. As my comments are not intended as any sort of attack on any individual, but rather a discussion of various ideas, then I do not see this as a problem. > Good programmers are always burnt by bad programmers. Good mechanics are always burnt by bad mechanics. Good doctors are always burnt by bad doctors. Good lawyers are...wait, not relevant to this field > was "trust metrics be used to ferret out people causing more harm than good" or something > to that effect. In addition to bad programmers pushing down good programmers, I've noticed > lazy programmers blocking hard working programmers and trying to keep company/client > expectations low. The lazy and the stupid are threatened by the hardworking and smart. > Once again, I could tell stories. As can my friends who work in completely unrelated, but regulated fields. They describe similar stories in their totally unrelated fields. The point being that I do not believe this is isolated to unregulated fields. It is a product of human nature. Some people are lazier, slower, manipulative, etc... than others and licensing will do absolutely nothing to curb that problem. Thousands of totally unqualified individuals receive degrees every year that should never be allowed to professionally practice in whatever field they have chosen. Will another test somehow succeed where the evaluation of an educational institution has failed? > Code is seen as an investment, and an investment that is not to be made lightly, and > managers hearing "this is aweful... I have to rewrite this" one too many times has Perl > down for the count. Is this not the type of thing one hears when a programmer evaluates another's code, regardless of the language used? Myself I thought it was more of an ego issue (I write better code) and not necessarily due to the language a program is written in. I have said those same words looking over basic, perl, shell, C, and just about everything else. My dad used to be a mechanic and he said the same thing about the work of some of his fellow licensed mechanics. Programming is not the only trade to suffer from shoddy workmanship. > there so far. Every other area of engineering has testing, licensing and > regulation. Architecture (AIA), Accounting (AICPA), Medicine (AMA), Law > (ABA), and so on, all have an examination and licensing process. Some > fields even have continuing education and retesting requirements as well. Yet they still suffer from the presence of completely unqualified professionals that are fully licensed to practice. If you have never experienced this then you lead a charmed life or I lead a cursed one (which is probably more likely!) > Per my first round of suggestions, I see the crux of the problem as programmer > and employer dysfunction and ignorance. Agreed. If you could develop a test to weed out ignorance then we should implement it across society as a whole. Might not be to many people left, but... Face it. Those of us that excel in our fields only excel because we are the rare breed. Meaning we are surrounded by the average and incompetent (by the standards WE defined, of course). Perhaps if we just accepted that the world is full of average people this wouldn't bother us so much. You cannot break the bell curve on this one. > Computers make basement dabbling easy. History has shown that sciences start off as > things that can be done in the basement and then scale in complexity beyond that. A lot of innovative science work is still being done in the basement. Once the basement scientist proves his theory and/or completes a prototype it is sold off to a huge corporation for refinement. Yet the creative groundwork was still done by the common man in his basement/garage/backyard. Science has most assuredly not been relegated solely to the corporations of the world. > medicine, and accounting are all making very good progress. As far as > creativity, yeah, that might be impeded a bit. Or maybe a lot, an unbearable > lot. Perhaps once all the artsy-fartsy was removed from programming, we > could actually start creating maintainable code that meets the needs of > users. If you want "COOL GRAPHICS MAN!" then maybe you should consider a > career as an artist of some type. If you want to be sloppy and arrogant > toward customers, you could go work for a car dealership, they specialize in > that sort of thing. Wow. Harsh. Anyone who likes graphics should just be kicked out of the computer world because a group of individuals do not care for them? Sounds like a guy I used to work with that constantly stated that all liberals should be shot and killed. He said it with great conviction. Ideas and things that I do not care for should not exist or at least not be encouraged? Perhaps if it was just stated that the artsy-fartsy code should be generated in appropriate places...? If architects were able to tolerate the artsy-fartsy Frank Lloyd Wright, perhaps we can learn to as well. The artsy part is that which allows innovation to continue despite the regulations and licensing restraints. > I am exploring is paralegalism. Now, here is a field which is young, > about > 30 years old, and already about half its membership is pushing for > professional qualification. Another area I am studying is home inspection, a > field only 25 years old and has had regulation and licensing (in some states) > for some time, with expansion coming in other states soon. AZ is one of 2 > states requiring Home Inspection licensing, just in this last year. The > national organization has been providing credentials for many years now. And yes folks there are plenty of bad inspectors. When I was buying a home a few years back I had to ask around to find the name of an inspector with a good reputation. > Companies don't trust programmers - not even good ones - especially good ones - so they > *have* to find shirfers to trust that take care of that pesky trust thing. Ironically the trust they are looking for is most appealing when sold to them by a used car salesman. His promises and assurances cloak them in a fuzzy, warm blanket of trust. > My career in computing is very sad. I have had to settle for working with > utter morons and idiots. Worse, some of the supervisors I had were worse > than that, some of them were outright liars, backstabbers, and ghouls. I know the feeling and have had it at numerous jobs in various fields. Yet I maintain that this is a people problem and no amount of regulation will ever put a stop to it. Unless you start regulating based on personality evaluations. ;-) This has dragged on so long I am not really sure what I wrote anymore. Summary: I am not against regulation. It could provide some benefits (increased pay), but I seriously doubt it would solve any of our troubles. - Jeremy "just avoiding doing real work" Elston From scott at illogics.org Wed Dec 4 17:49:59 2002 From: scott at illogics.org (Scott Walters) Date: Thu Aug 5 00:16:53 2004 Subject: Phoenix.pm: New thread: Spelling, Grammar, and other annoying stuff In-Reply-To: from "Hal Goldfarb" at Dec 04, 2002 11:51:55 AM Message-ID: <200212042350.gB4No0Pi011870@slowass.net> > PLEASE! I love chatting, but I am getting tired of all the tons of spelling > and grammar errors. This is another thing that compromises any hope of a > professional image for this field. We all need to keep on each other about > written presentations. I'm sorry - I'm experimenting with a new mailer and it doesn't have ispell hooks. The last one (pine) was shooting up to 100% cpu usage and just sitting there for 15 minutes at a time, every 15 minutes, after more than a few messages accumulated. I've been looking up words manually on dict.org. My spelling is horrid - if I weren't looking things up as I went, it would be much, much worse. We should all have high standards, but up until a couple years ago, I made no effort in this direction. My growth is stunted ;) Bare with this newbie. -scott From scott at illogics.org Wed Dec 4 18:11:04 2002 From: scott at illogics.org (Scott Walters) Date: Thu Aug 5 00:16:53 2004 Subject: Phoenix.pm: EL&R for computer field In-Reply-To: from "Hal Goldfarb" at Dec 04, 2002 11:37:33 AM Message-ID: <200212050011.gB50B6dY011994@slowass.net> > > > The field is so broad and so many levels of experience are tolerated it > > would be difficult. Note that this is the only negative thing I had to say re: certification - the comments about herding cats were taken from someone elses email message. > > Ahhhh, but the recruiters are the shirfers (sp? can't find it on dict.org). > > They make sense of the Voodoo for employers. That puts them in a very > > powerful position. > > "They" -- meaning the recruiters? Are you kidding? They cannot even make > sense of job postings and resumes most of the time. Couple that up with > their lack of experience in the field and zip technical knowledge, and that > they cannot spell worth dirt ... and you have a dangerous situation. The > only "Voodoo" most recruiters really know seems to be having the inside scoop > before we do. No, I'm not kidding. I said that companies feel that they need a guide to selecting programmers - not that they have effectively found one. Their last attempt ("guides" to overseas talent) is even more laughable. The real problem is being evaded. > > Licensing computer professionals is about as useful as licensing artists, > > licensing authors, or herding cats... You're qouting me quoting someone else ;) I'm surprised no one had any comments on Pladdium and Passport redefining the computer industry, transforming it from a cottage industry to an industry that only major corporations do R&D work in. When other industries stopped being a garage persuit and became a serious discipline it marked the maturing of that field: medicine, chemistry, mechanical engineering, and so forth. As near as I can tell, Hal, within 15 years, you'll get your wish. > Thanks, that burned less than I expected. Usually I'm the one venting aggravation, but I guess you're allowed too ;) -scott > > -Hal > > From scott at illogics.org Wed Dec 4 21:23:23 2002 From: scott at illogics.org (Scott Walters) Date: Thu Aug 5 00:16:53 2004 Subject: Phoenix.pm: Programmer-standardized testing - was Parameter p In-Reply-To: from "Elston, Jeremy" at Dec 04, 2002 04:12:34 PM Message-ID: <200212050323.gB53NPt9013146@slowass.net> > Guess it is time to open my mouth ... Wide enough to allow my foot to be > shoved in it later! phoenix-pm-list hasn't seen any bloody battles yet (knock on wood). With matters of opinion, one shouldn't worry about being wrong. Since we aren't in a position to implement these ideas, it's all theoretical. > As can my friends who work in completely unrelated, but regulated fields. > They describe similar stories in their totally unrelated fields. The point > being that I do not believe this is isolated to unregulated fields. It is a > product of human nature. Some people are lazier, slower, manipulative, > etc... than others and licensing will do absolutely nothing to curb that > problem. Most industries have a readily understood, easily observed product. Production can be quantified. Because of the technical yet abstract nature of code, a staff of hundreds of developers can get away with doing nothing for years, asuming no one blows the whistle - not in every case, of course, but it does happen. I'll grant you that this is human nature - I maintain that the scale can be larger in some cases in IT/CS ;) > Thousands of totally unqualified individuals receive degrees every year that > should never be allowed to professionally practice in whatever field they > have chosen. Will another test somehow succeed where the evaluation of an > educational institution has failed? > > > Code is seen as an investment, and an investment that is not to be made > lightly, and > > managers hearing "this is aweful... I have to rewrite this" one too many > times has Perl > > down for the count. > > Is this not the type of thing one hears when a programmer evaluates > another's code, regardless of the language used? Myself I thought it was > more of an ego issue (I write better code) and not necessarily due to the > language a program is written in. I have said those same words looking over > basic, perl, shell, C, and just about everything else. Be it myth or fact, Java markets itself as reducing the frequency of this problem. Perl has so many syntaxisms and idioms, and "dialects of Perl" as Larry Wall puts it, that it is difficult to know enough of the language to understand the work of otehrs. Perl has a deserved reputation for being unreadable. If people use only the features that directly correspond that features in Java (for instance), there would be a common dialect, but at the expense of the expressiveness of Perl. Some times other people really do write code with ignorant choice of idiom and feature, but with Perl it is often just unfamiliar dialects. This problem is above and beyond ego associated with one's own code, and the too often valid suspicion of other people's code. > My dad used to be a mechanic and he said the same thing about the work of > some of his fellow licensed mechanics. Programming is not the only trade > to suffer from shoddy workmanship. Auto mechanics is another rare field where one person has to come in and do work after another person. Most people elect not to have any repairs on their engine done more advanced than replacing a water pump or starter. With an engine, there is generally one correct way for a repair to be made - as long as bolts are tentioned correctly, parts are within wear limits, and it is put together consistent with the service manual, everything is fine. Programs have no service manual and no fixed structure, but are each ongoing designs by amature "engineers". I agree with your point, but I think the scope of the problem is larger with software. > > Per my first round of suggestions, I see the crux of the problem as > programmer > > and employer dysfunction and ignorance. > > Agreed. If you could develop a test to weed out ignorance then we should > implement it across society as a whole. Might not be to many people left, > but... > > Face it. Those of us that excel in our fields only excel because we are the > rare breed. Meaning we are surrounded by the average and incompetent (by > the standards WE defined, of course). Perhaps if we just accepted that the > world is full of average people this wouldn't bother us so much. You cannot > break the bell curve on this one. Thanks. Like I said, employers hire a broad range of experience levels - some places are happy with a bunch of a budget programmers. Attitude has a lot more to do with your success than ability, in my experience, but that is a different topic. Many shops place "team player" as a virtue above ability. Others shops have other requirements. > > Computers make basement dabbling easy. History has shown that sciences > start off as > > things that can be done in the basement and then scale in complexity > beyond that. > > A lot of innovative science work is still being done in the basement. Once > the basement scientist proves his theory and/or completes a prototype it is > sold off to a huge corporation for refinement. Yet the creative groundwork > was still done by the common man in his basement/garage/backyard. Science > has most assuredly not been relegated solely to the corporations of the > world. Electronics as a hobby has lost popularity lately - these people used to make their own shortwave radios, do random projects, microprocessor integration, and so forth. It was a thriving hobby industry - Radio Shack had a large selection of tools and parts, not just a few odds and ends that they have now. Several publications were dedicated to it. Now that complex electronic devices can be had inexpensively, and the complexity of the average circuit is beyond what a hobbyist has time and energy to understand, and the whole field is becoming more propreitary, people are losing interest. Circuit integration has been a hard blow - formerly transparent things are now cloaked in a black box. I see Digital Rights Management serving a similar role for the computer hobby. People still design and built circuits, there are just far fewer of them, using more expensive tools, doing it for money, not love. The things that can be built at home aren't interesting compared with what can be bought. As fields mature, research and practice seperate. I'm not saying major corporations own science, just that the tools to do interesting work in a mature field are out of reach for hobbyists. This could well be used as a definition of "mature" for a field. > > Companies don't trust programmers - not even good ones - especially good > ones - so they > > *have* to find shirfers to trust that take care of that pesky trust thing. > > Ironically the trust they are looking for is most appealing when sold to > them by a used car salesman. His promises and assurances cloak them in a > fuzzy, warm blanket of trust. Exactly. When is the last time a programmer said to a client, "Oh, it doesn't matter what the problem is, don't worry about a thing, I'll have it all taken care of"? The willingness to put your reputation on the line at the drop of the hat is powerful. It only lasts so long, but you can sell a lot of cars before the used car industry is universally shunned. (The New Hackers Dictionary, Second Edition published alternate style guidelines, including rules for punctuating quotations. I'm being a radical and using these rules, sorry). > > This has dragged on so long I am not really sure what I wrote anymore. > Summary: I am not against regulation. It could provide some benefits > (increased pay), but I seriously doubt it would solve any of our troubles. Hahaha, I think I'm done too. Thanks for your views. Feel free to refute me, but I think I've bored PM with my views enough ;) > - Jeremy "just avoiding doing real work" Elston -scott From billn at billn.net Wed Dec 4 15:38:34 2002 From: billn at billn.net (Bill Nash) Date: Thu Aug 5 00:16:53 2004 Subject: Phoenix.pm: Programmer-standardized testing - was Parameter p In-Reply-To: <200212050323.gB53NPt9013146@slowass.net> Message-ID: On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Scott Walters wrote: > Most industries have a readily understood, easily observed product. > Production can be quantified. Because of the technical yet abstract > nature of code, a staff of hundreds of developers can get away with doing nothing > for years, asuming no one blows the whistle - not in every case, of course, > but it does happen. I'll grant you that this is human nature - I maintain > that the scale can be larger in some cases in IT/CS ;) This is amplified by the decade-past tendency of people to fear their technology, and to take an "Emperor's New Clothes" stance towards its management. Most managers will nod their heads and agree about most things the technologically advantaged will say, rather than bite the bullet and admit they don't understand. I know a couple very capable project managers than can absolutely destroy cunning technologists who pull these stunts, without needing to understand the technology involved. > > Thousands of totally unqualified individuals receive degrees every year that > > should never be allowed to professionally practice in whatever field they > > have chosen. Will another test somehow succeed where the evaluation of an > > educational institution has failed? I've got a project in the works that will convince you of this. =) > Be it myth or fact, Java markets itself as reducing the frequency of this > problem. Perl has so many syntaxisms and idioms, and "dialects of Perl" as > Larry Wall puts it, that it is difficult to know enough of the language to > understand the work of otehrs. Perl has a deserved reputation for being unreadable. > If people use only the features that directly correspond that features in > Java (for instance), there would be a common dialect, but at the expense of > the expressiveness of Perl. Some times other people really do write code > with ignorant choice of idiom and feature, but with Perl it is often just > unfamiliar dialects. Like any other language, exposure only increases understanding. Perl offers such a diverse experience, as well as an excellent insight into how people learn, or teach themselves. > This problem is above and beyond ego associated with one's own code, and > the too often valid suspicion of other people's code. That's the other edge of Perl's diversity. I oftenfind myself wanting to look at code before I'll trust it, simply to have a better understanding of how it works. It's human instinct to fear what you don't understand. It's evolutionary to turn that fear into curiousity. Unless you're working with explosives. Then it's Darwinism. > Thanks. Like I said, employers hire a broad range of experience levels - > some places are happy with a bunch of a budget programmers. > > Attitude has a lot more to do with your success than ability, in my experience, > but that is a different topic. Many shops place "team player" as a virtue > above ability. Others shops have other requirements. Being a team player often isn't enough. Bad managers and bad hiring practices can take any team and drive it into the ground by introducing inferior team members. The stronger members who point this out are seen as counterproductive, even though they may be right. - billn From codewell at earthlink.net Thu Dec 5 00:04:26 2002 From: codewell at earthlink.net (Hal Goldfarb) Date: Thu Aug 5 00:16:53 2004 Subject: Phoenix.pm: Of software and fish Message-ID: Whoa! I think I may have been misunderstood. > > there so far. Every other area of engineering has testing, licensing and > > regulation. Architecture (AIA), Accounting (AICPA), Medicine (AMA), Law > > (ABA), and so on, all have an examination and licensing process. Some > > fields even have continuing education and retesting requirements as well. > > Yet they still suffer from the presence of completely unqualified > professionals that are fully licensed to practice. If you have never > experienced this then you lead a charmed life or I lead a cursed one (which > is probably more likely!) I agree that mere licensing will not be enough to raise the standards, but you forgot the key element: Examinations and continuing ed. to retain the license. Requiring a license to practice would have about the same effect as requiring fisher(wo)men to have fishing licenses. Any idiot with a fishing pole can catch a fish -- I did once when I was about 7, caught 2 catfish with the help of my grandfather and then I ate the fish. Yum. And I had no prior knowledge of fishing or fish or cooking fish. But let's say all fishermen who wanted a license to fish had to pass a rigid education and licensing exam. Perhaps they have to go to school to learn about the rate that schools and colonies of fish replicate, and which species at which rate, which species eat what other species, marshland ecosystems (extremely important for upstream food chain; rivers die when marshlands are spoiled, even with best intentions), and so forth. Then let's say that after all of that, they have to sit for an exam for 4 days, answering all sorts of questions, everything from how to catch fish efficiently and humanely, how to store fish caught, what the laws are on overfishing, where it is OK to fish, and yada yada yada. And so on and so on and so on. I believe many fishermen would not make it through that minefield. My understanding of the IEEE test, according to their promotional materials as well as their 50 question sample, makes me think that this is one HARD test to pass. They describe it as a "challenging" experience. Another thing. I am not so sure that I myself could even pass such a rigorous exam. But so be it, if only the very smartest and most intelligent could pass it, you would eliminate virtually all of the riff-raff. Yes, my cousin is a civil engineer and he complains about ineptitude in the workplace as well. But I am certain this is not the case for 95% of the industry. The AMA (at last I heard) has about 7000 "bad doctors" on its list; but that is very small compared to the number of practicing doctors. And you cannot judge doctors only on their bedside manner and more than you can judge lawyers on their surliness ... or programmers for their "know-it-all-ness". World class surgeons and world class defense lawyers are known to have poor attitudes. But attitudes don't cause excellence. Knowledge, experience, fortitude, and certain god-given gifts (depending on the field) cause excellence. This is Hal, signing off. PS BTW, I do not consider myself any sort of fisherman. The last time I fished was that time when I was 7. And I do not advocate such stringent testing for fisherpeople. It was just a strawman for you to poke at, instead of me! From codewell at earthlink.net Thu Dec 5 01:17:55 2002 From: codewell at earthlink.net (Hal Goldfarb) Date: Thu Aug 5 00:16:53 2004 Subject: Phoenix.pm: Of software and fish Message-ID: > > there so far. Every other area of engineering has testing, licensing and > > regulation. Architecture (AIA), Accounting (AICPA), Medicine (AMA), Law > > (ABA), and so on, all have an examination and licensing process. Some > > fields even have continuing education and retesting requirements as well. > > Yet they still suffer from the presence of completely unqualified > professionals that are fully licensed to practice. If you have never > experienced this then you lead a charmed life or I lead a cursed one (which > is probably more likely!) OK, here is maybe a better example. So you go to the brain surgeon to have a tumor removed, and as you are passing out from the anasthetic, the last thing you remember seeing as your eyes blur and you lose conscience is your doctor standing over you reviewing the book "Brain Surgery for Complete Idiots". When you wake up, you feel much better, but you can't remember who you are, where you live, or what you do for a living. All you can remember is testifying at something called a "trial" (and guess who was also at the trial, sitting next to the defense attorney?). Or something like that. Now, imagine that the US is attacked by hackers who bring down the entire internet, including all of the porn sites. The US economy comes to a complete halt as our great minds in Washington DC figure out what to do. After a blue ribbon senate committee, Americans Concerned about Hubcaps, the United Anarchists LLC, People Against Hamburgers, and every other special interest group in the country have thoroughly dissected the incident, and $3.6 trillion dollars later, it is determined that it was just another couple of 8 year olds who figured out one more way to exploit .NET version 7 technology (they wrote their kiddie script in MS VisualBasic++). All of the states file lawsuits against Microsoft for writing insecure software, and of course, the United States government, who defends Microsoft, saying that a decision against them would be bad for what is then left of the economy (assume Microsoft is one of the last 7 corporations left in the country during the 2nd Great Depression of the 2010's. There are only 38 people left employed and every else's unemployment benefits ran out long ago, or they are dead. But those still employed inspire those looking for jobs, admonishing them not to sit around feeling sorry for themselves, suggesting they take $1.50/hr jobs and work their way up, and provide other useful information and free job search sites.). Luckily, President Ashcroft makes a moving speech in a time of crisis and the public forgets the whole thing 6 weeks later. So my point is this: Uh, my point. What ... is my point? Er, I forgot. I was going somewhere with this, then I lost it. I'll try again later after I sleep a bit. If anyone, friend or foe, can figure this out, I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks. From intertwingled at qwest.net Thu Dec 5 03:41:02 2002 From: intertwingled at qwest.net (intertwingled) Date: Thu Aug 5 00:16:53 2004 Subject: Phoenix.pm: Of software and fish In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20021205024102.009898a0@pop.phnx.qwest.net> It all got outsourced to India. I hope you like curry. Tony At 12:17 AM 12/5/02 -0700, you wrote: > > >> > there so far. Every other area of engineering has testing, licensing and >> > regulation. Architecture (AIA), Accounting (AICPA), Medicine (AMA), Law >> > (ABA), and so on, all have an examination and licensing process. Some >> > fields even have continuing education and retesting requirements as well. >> >> Yet they still suffer from the presence of completely unqualified >> professionals that are fully licensed to practice. If you have never >> experienced this then you lead a charmed life or I lead a cursed one (which >> is probably more likely!) > >OK, here is maybe a better example. > >So you go to the brain surgeon to have a tumor removed, and as you are >passing out from the anasthetic, the last thing you remember seeing as your >eyes blur and you lose conscience is your doctor standing over you reviewing >the book "Brain Surgery for Complete Idiots". When you wake up, you feel >much better, but you can't remember who you are, where you live, or what you >do for a living. All you can remember is testifying at something called a >"trial" (and guess who was also at the trial, sitting next to the defense >attorney?). > >Or something like that. Now, imagine that the US is attacked by hackers who >bring down the entire internet, including all of the porn sites. The US >economy comes to a complete halt as our great minds in Washington DC figure >out what to do. After a blue ribbon senate committee, Americans Concerned >about Hubcaps, the United Anarchists LLC, People Against Hamburgers, and >every other special interest group in the country have thoroughly dissected >the incident, and $3.6 trillion dollars later, it is determined that it was >just another couple of 8 year olds who figured out one more way to exploit >.NET version 7 technology (they wrote their kiddie script in MS >VisualBasic++). All of the states file lawsuits against Microsoft for >writing insecure software, and of course, the United States government, who >defends Microsoft, saying that a decision against them would be bad for what >is then left of the economy (assume Microsoft is one of the last 7 >corporations left in the country during the 2nd Great Depression of the >2010's. There are only 38 people left employed and every else's >unemployment benefits ran out long ago, or they are dead. But those still >employed inspire those looking for jobs, admonishing them not to sit around >feeling sorry for themselves, suggesting they take $1.50/hr jobs and work >their way up, and provide other useful information and free job search >sites.). Luckily, President Ashcroft makes a moving speech in a time of >crisis and the public forgets the whole thing 6 weeks later. > >So my point is this: Uh, my point. What ... is my point? Er, I forgot. >I was going somewhere with this, then I lost it. > >I'll try again later after I sleep a bit. If anyone, friend or foe, can >figure this out, I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks. > > -- even the safest course is fraught with peril From intertwingled at qwest.net Thu Dec 5 14:46:29 2002 From: intertwingled at qwest.net (intertwingled) Date: Thu Aug 5 00:16:53 2004 Subject: Phoenix.pm: The Poetry of Programming Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20021205134629.0095fd20@pop.phnx.qwest.net> http://java.sun.com/features/2002/11/gabriel_qa.html -- even the safest course is fraught with peril From codewell at earthlink.net Thu Dec 5 15:12:30 2002 From: codewell at earthlink.net (Hal Goldfarb) Date: Thu Aug 5 00:16:53 2004 Subject: Phoenix.pm: Of software and fish In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20021205024102.009898a0@pop.phnx.qwest.net> References: <3.0.6.32.20021205024102.009898a0@pop.phnx.qwest.net> Message-ID: On Thursday 05 December 2002 02:41 am, you wrote: > It all got outsourced to India. I hope you like curry. > > Tony > > > >So my point is this: Uh, my point. What ... is my point? Er, I > > forgot. I was going somewhere with this, then I lost it. > > > >I'll try again later after I sleep a bit. If anyone, friend or foe, can > >figure this out, I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks. Curry. Yum, curry. Mmmm. Doh! From wlindley at wlindley.com Thu Dec 5 20:49:32 2002 From: wlindley at wlindley.com (William Lindley) Date: Thu Aug 5 00:16:53 2004 Subject: Phoenix.pm: Of software and fish In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Will it be illegal for a secretary to write a macro? Is there actually any boundary between using a computer, and programming one? No. Or, prove to me that there is. \\/ From intertwingled at qwest.net Thu Dec 5 22:58:38 2002 From: intertwingled at qwest.net (intertwingled) Date: Thu Aug 5 00:16:53 2004 Subject: Phoenix.pm: Of software and fish In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20021205215838.00965200@pop.phnx.qwest.net> Depends. Is she good looking? At 07:49 PM 12/5/02 -0700, you wrote: >Will it be illegal for a secretary to write a macro? > >Is there actually any boundary between using a computer, >and programming one? > >No. > >Or, prove to me that there is. > >\\/ > > > > -- even the safest course is fraught with peril From codewell at earthlink.net Fri Dec 6 00:20:15 2002 From: codewell at earthlink.net (Hal Goldfarb) Date: Thu Aug 5 00:16:53 2004 Subject: Phoenix.pm: Of software and fish In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Is it illegal for me to use a band-aid (that's technically medicine, or at least nursing)? Is it illegal for me to trade stock on the internet (I don't have a trader's license)? Is it illegal for me to comment on the Mariner's last season, even though I am not really a sports buff or anything like that? I think we are talking about apples and oranges. If my doctor sues me for using a sheer strip, then maybe there is a point to be had. Secretaries can write macros, but only if they are good at it. If they waste all day doing it, maybe we could utilize human resources more efficiently. On Thursday 05 December 2002 07:49 pm, you wrote: > Will it be illegal for a secretary to write a macro? > > Is there actually any boundary between using a computer, > and programming one? > > No. > > Or, prove to me that there is. > > \\/ From codewell at earthlink.net Fri Dec 6 00:21:17 2002 From: codewell at earthlink.net (Hal Goldfarb) Date: Thu Aug 5 00:16:53 2004 Subject: Phoenix.pm: Of software and fish In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20021205215838.00965200@pop.phnx.qwest.net> References: <3.0.6.32.20021205215838.00965200@pop.phnx.qwest.net> Message-ID: I think we finally have the answer: On Thursday 05 December 2002 09:58 pm, you wrote: > Depends. Is she good looking? > > At 07:49 PM 12/5/02 -0700, you wrote: > >Will it be illegal for a secretary to write a macro? > > > >Is there actually any boundary between using a computer, > >and programming one? > > > >No. > > > >Or, prove to me that there is. > > > >\\/ From scott at illogics.org Fri Dec 6 01:05:26 2002 From: scott at illogics.org (Scott Walters) Date: Thu Aug 5 00:16:53 2004 Subject: Phoenix.pm: Of software and fish In-Reply-To: from "William Lindley" at Dec 05, 2002 07:49:32 PM Message-ID: <200212060705.gB675RaM023552@slowass.net> > > > Will it be illegal for a secretary to write a macro? > > Is there actually any boundary between using a computer, > and programming one? > > No. > > Or, prove to me that there is. > No. I agree. I've allowed for that in my argument, using the word "useful". You'll be able to program - in fact you'll always be able to go into the basement and fire up Perl 5.005 for AmigaOS on your 3000 (or 5.10 on your AMD 3000), but if everything that is interesting to people is done as a Passport enabled Web Service (SOAP), you may be excluded from the realm of "interesting things" by a matter of definition, much as interesting things in electronics are done using integrated circuits, excluding electronics hobbyists. I actually see casual scripting becoming easier in the future. Of course, I can only see into the future standing on my soap box ;) -scott > \\/ > > > From intertwingled at qwest.net Fri Dec 6 01:53:51 2002 From: intertwingled at qwest.net (intertwingled) Date: Thu Aug 5 00:16:53 2004 Subject: Phoenix.pm: Of software and fish In-Reply-To: <200212060705.gB675RaM023552@slowass.net> References: Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20021206005351.00963e40@pop.phnx.qwest.net> Hey Scott, I got an honest-to-god Microvax 3500 now. If I ever get netbsd or openvms running on it, you can have a shell. =) Tony At 11:05 PM 12/5/02 -0800, you wrote: >> >> >> Will it be illegal for a secretary to write a macro? >> >> Is there actually any boundary between using a computer, >> and programming one? >> >> No. >> >> Or, prove to me that there is. >> > >No. I agree. I've allowed for that in my argument, using the word >"useful". You'll be able to program - in fact you'll always be able >to go into the basement and fire up Perl 5.005 for AmigaOS on your >3000 (or 5.10 on your AMD 3000), but if everything that is >interesting to people is done as a Passport enabled Web Service >(SOAP), you may be excluded from the realm of "interesting things" >by a matter of definition, much as interesting things in electronics >are done using integrated circuits, excluding electronics hobbyists. > >I actually see casual scripting becoming easier in the future. Of >course, I can only see into the future standing on my soap box ;) > >-scott > >> \\/ >> >> >> > > > -- even the safest course is fraught with peril From doug.miles at bpxinternet.com Tue Dec 10 19:10:10 2002 From: doug.miles at bpxinternet.com (Doug Miles) Date: Thu Aug 5 00:16:53 2004 Subject: Phoenix.pm: Meeting 12/12/2002 Message-ID: <3DF69072.4090109@bpxinternet.com> Holiday Party social meeting! We'll be having a Phoenix.pm meeting Thursday, December 12th at 7:00PM. It will be held at Bowne, which is located at 1500 N. Central Avenue, which is on the Southwest corner of Central and McDowell. The parking lot is gated, so just press the button on the intercom, and tell the receptionist that you are there for the Perl meeting. Park in the lot that is straight ahead from the entrance on the South side of McDowell. Park in any uncovered, non-reserved space. Proceed to the main lobby, which is on the Northeast side of the parking lot. We'll be having a "geek" white elephant gift exchange. Bring any hardware/computer paraphernalia (working or not) you'd like to unload on some hapless victim. Please wrap the gift (or at least put it in a box) to increase the suspense. :) If you don't want to participate, you don't have to. You just won't get to take home any new useless^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H cool stuff. ;) -- - Doug Don't anthropomorphize computers. They hate that. From doug.miles at bpxinternet.com Wed Dec 11 16:15:02 2002 From: doug.miles at bpxinternet.com (Doug Miles) Date: Thu Aug 5 00:16:53 2004 Subject: Phoenix.pm: Reminder: Meeting 12/12/2002 Message-ID: <3DF7B8E6.6010308@bpxinternet.com> Please RSVP... Holiday Party social meeting! We'll be having a Phoenix.pm meeting Thursday, December 12th at 7:00PM. It will be held at Bowne, which is located at 1500 N. Central Avenue, which is on the Southwest corner of Central and McDowell. The parking lot is gated, so just press the button on the intercom, and tell the receptionist that you are there for the Perl meeting. Park in the lot that is straight ahead from the entrance on the South side of McDowell. Park in any uncovered, non-reserved space. Proceed to the main lobby, which is on the Northeast side of the parking lot. We'll be having a "geek" white elephant gift exchange. Bring any hardware/computer paraphernalia (working or not) you'd like to unload on some hapless victim. Please wrap the gift (or at least put it in a box) to increase the suspense. :) If you don't want to participate, you don't have to. You just won't get to take home any new useless^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H cool stuff. ;) -- - Doug Don't anthropomorphize computers. They hate that. From doug.miles at bpxinternet.com Thu Dec 12 11:28:47 2002 From: doug.miles at bpxinternet.com (Doug Miles) Date: Thu Aug 5 00:16:53 2004 Subject: Phoenix.pm: Reminder: Meeting 12/12/2002 References: <3DF7B8E6.6010308@bpxinternet.com> Message-ID: <3DF8C74F.2070604@bpxinternet.com> Doug Miles wrote: > Please RSVP... > > Holiday Party social meeting! > > We'll be having a Phoenix.pm meeting Thursday, December 12th at 7:00PM. > It will be held at Bowne, which is located at 1500 N. Central Avenue, > which is on the Southwest corner of Central and McDowell. The parking > lot is gated, so just press the button on the intercom, and tell the > receptionist that you are there for the Perl meeting. Park in the lot > that is straight ahead from the entrance on the South side of McDowell. > Park in any uncovered, non-reserved space. Proceed to the main lobby, > which is on the Northeast side of the parking lot. > > We'll be having a "geek" white elephant gift exchange. Bring any > hardware/computer paraphernalia (working or not) you'd like to unload on > some hapless victim. Please wrap the gift (or at least put it in a box) > to increase the suspense. :) If you don't want to participate, you > don't have to. You just won't get to take home any new > useless^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H cool stuff. ;) > So far nobody has RSVP'd. I'll have to cancel if I don't hear from someone before noon. From wlindley at wlindley.com Thu Dec 12 11:43:35 2002 From: wlindley at wlindley.com (William Lindley) Date: Thu Aug 5 00:16:53 2004 Subject: Phoenix.pm: PLUG Party/Potluck/Meeting tonight (fwd) Message-ID: If there's no .pm meeting tonight, y'all are welcome at the PLUG party/potluck/meeting also tonite at 7pm \\/ see http://plug.phoenix.az.us ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 10:14:14 -0700 (MST) From: der.hans Reply-To: plug-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us To: Phoenix Linux Users Group Subject: Re: Meeting tonight ? There is only one [PLUG] meeting this month and it's tonight at Sequoia [in Mesa]! [The Sequoia Charter School is located just north of US 60 on the west side of the street. There is NOT a freeway ramp at Horne, so take the Mesa or Stapley exit north to Southern. Turn south onto Horne and look for us on the right.] The GNU/Linux Stammtisch will still be held this coming Tuesday at Bandersnatch, though. For tonight, it is suggested, but not necessary, to bring food or drink. We're usually short on non-snack or dessert types of stuff. Drinks are also a good thing to bring as are glasses, plates, plasticware, etc. ciao, der.hans -- # https://www.LuftHans.com/ http://www.TOLISGroup.com/ # "The reasons for my decision to quit were myriad, but central to the # decision ws the realization that there are two kinds of companies: # Good ones ask you to think for them. # The others tell you to think like them." -- Benjy Feen --------------------------------------------------- PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change you mail settings: http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss From doug.miles at bpxinternet.com Thu Dec 12 13:20:27 2002 From: doug.miles at bpxinternet.com (Doug Miles) Date: Thu Aug 5 00:16:53 2004 Subject: Phoenix.pm: MEETING CANCELED! Message-ID: <3DF8E17B.8000706@bpxinternet.com> Looks like nobody's going to make it tonight, so the meeting is canceled. I'm going on vacation next week, and will be gone through the end of the year. Happy Holidays to everyone, and we'll pick the meetings up again next year! From scott at illogics.org Thu Dec 12 14:08:41 2002 From: scott at illogics.org (Scott Walters) Date: Thu Aug 5 00:16:53 2004 Subject: Phoenix.pm: MEETING CANCELED! In-Reply-To: from "Doug Miles" at Dec 12, 2002 12:20:27 PM Message-ID: <200212122008.gBCK8ggw023090@slowass.net> Doug, Ack! I don't wake up before noon =P I probably would have made it but I didn't want to pull a Kurt - RSVP then not show. Perhaps we should change our name - The International Brootherhood of Bytecode, Binary, Abstract Symbol Table, Patterning Match, Web Script, and lesser Sysadmin Workers, local 220. Bloody holidays... I retract my false sentiments. I hope atleast one other person has to try to write code while their mother is in town trying to rearrange the cupboards =P -scott > > Looks like nobody's going to make it tonight, so the meeting is > canceled. I'm going on vacation next week, and will be gone through the > end of the year. Happy Holidays to everyone, and we'll pick the > meetings up again next year! > > From doug.miles at bpxinternet.com Thu Dec 12 14:40:37 2002 From: doug.miles at bpxinternet.com (Doug Miles) Date: Thu Aug 5 00:16:53 2004 Subject: Phoenix.pm: MEETING CANCELED! References: <200212122008.gBCK8ggw023090@slowass.net> Message-ID: <3DF8F445.2030306@bpxinternet.com> Scott Walters wrote: > Doug, > > Ack! > > I don't wake up before noon =P > I probably would have made it but I didn't want to pull a Kurt - RSVP then not > show. > > Perhaps we should change our name - The International Brootherhood of Bytecode, > Binary, Abstract Symbol Table, Patterning Match, Web Script, and > lesser Sysadmin Workers, local 220. > Bloody holidays... I retract my false sentiments. I hope atleast one other person > has to try to write code while their mother is in town trying to rearrange the cupboards =P > > -scott Sorry about that. I should have rembered your sleeping schedule. :) I guess my heart really isn't in it anyway. We lost one more person to layoffs this week, and my boss is making me wish I had been a dryland farmer. > >>Looks like nobody's going to make it tonight, so the meeting is >>canceled. I'm going on vacation next week, and will be gone through the >>end of the year. Happy Holidays to everyone, and we'll pick the >>meetings up again next year! >> >> > > > From johngnub at att.net Fri Dec 13 15:04:55 2002 From: johngnub at att.net (johngnub@att.net) Date: Thu Aug 5 00:16:53 2004 Subject: Phoenix.pm: MEETING CANCELED! Message-ID: <20021213210456.OEQA20003.mtiwmhc13.worldnet.att.net@mtiwebc16> Bummer on Z metting, the PM's are just filled with good news... Dry Land Farming? That sounds like fun,,,,NOT. JB laned his space ship at a "Shiping Co", doing general system admin werke, See: http://www.deutschepost.de/ Not that you find my name on the www page, but,.,.,. > Scott Walters wrote: > > Doug, > > > > Ack! > > > > I don't wake up before noon =P > > I probably would have made it but I didn't want to pull a Kurt - RSVP then not > > show. > > > > Perhaps we should change our name - The International Brootherhood of > Bytecode, > > Binary, Abstract Symbol Table, Patterning Match, Web Script, and > > lesser Sysadmin Workers, local 220. > > Bloody holidays... I retract my false sentiments. I hope atleast one other > person > > has to try to write code while their mother is in town trying to rearrange the > cupboards =P > > > > -scott > > Sorry about that. I should have rembered your sleeping schedule. :) I > guess my heart really isn't in it anyway. We lost one more person to > layoffs this week, and my boss is making me wish I had been a dryland > farmer. > > > > >>Looks like nobody's going to make it tonight, so the meeting is > >>canceled. I'm going on vacation next week, and will be gone through the > >>end of the year. Happy Holidays to everyone, and we'll pick the > >>meetings up again next year! > >> > >> > > > > > > > > From codewell at earthlink.net Mon Dec 16 09:53:24 2002 From: codewell at earthlink.net (Hal Goldfarb) Date: Thu Aug 5 00:16:53 2004 Subject: Phoenix.pm: MEETING CANCELED! In-Reply-To: <20021213210456.OEQA20003.mtiwmhc13.worldnet.att.net@mtiwebc16> References: <20021213210456.OEQA20003.mtiwmhc13.worldnet.att.net@mtiwebc16> Message-ID: On Friday 13 December 2002 02:04 pm, you wrote: > Bummer on Z metting, the PM's are just filled with good news... > Dry Land Farming? That sounds like fun,,,,NOT. > > JB laned his space ship at a "Shiping Co", > doing general system admin werke, See: http://www.deutschepost.de/ > > Not that you find my name on the www page, but,.,.,. > I'm sorry, but I kind of missed something here. Part of it may be do to speling, ifya no waddAh meen. Can't people take about 1.5 seconds to review what they just wrote before hitting SEND? That way, I could ALSO enjoy the humor. Or whatever it was supposed to be. -Hal Did I miss a really good email thread? From scott at illogics.org Tue Dec 17 11:12:34 2002 From: scott at illogics.org (Scott Walters) Date: Thu Aug 5 00:16:53 2004 Subject: Phoenix.pm: phoenix.pm.org website "updates" Message-ID: <200212171712.gBHHCaHC005307@slowass.net> Hi kids, I've made some changes to the http://phoenix.pm.org website. It should look almost exactly the same as before, but now there is a little "edit this page" link in the bottom left corner of most pages in the main frame. (Who would have thought that the web would resurrect main frames?) Yes, it is TinyWiki (surprise, surprise). The major sections are still the same: Books, Members, Projects, and Links. I invite you to update your bio, post a book review, list a project you're working on, or link to a cool Perl site. If no one else posts, I'll be forced to take down the blurbs I posted for fear of being thought vain. People giving talks are encouraged to link to their slides and code downloads from the Projects page. Feel free to create entire pages for yourself or a pet project. When editing a page you may use POD, HTML or Wiki syntax to mark up content. The bulletin board is still in place and is still the best place for things that don't fit those categories. I'll do my best to police the site but feel free to relocate misplaced or inappropriate content yourself. If anything goes horribly wrong, let me know. I'll fish a safe version out of CVS. Thanks to Tim Beavers, who did the site design and content. The current iteration is just a minor adaptation of his original work. Thanks for your attention, -scott From webmaster at azwebs.com Tue Dec 17 23:40:48 2002 From: webmaster at azwebs.com (Webmaster) Date: Thu Aug 5 00:16:53 2004 Subject: Phoenix.pm: phoenix.pm.org website "updates" References: <200212171712.gBHHCaHC005307@slowass.net> Message-ID: <003001c2a658$05b0c940$a8a3a1ac@computer> Hi yous guys... Tim Beavers here. I'm sure no one really missed me... But in case anyone is wondering where I am, I moved to NJ in June. No, I don't watch "The Sopranos." I still enjoy being on the Pheonix.pm list though. It reminds me of how hot my steering wheel would get sitting out in the Sky Harbor parking lot for days at a time... I moved up to the 767, and since that is an international jet, I'm managing to find my way to Europe 3 or 4 times a month. (Does anyone need anything? Anything I won't get arrested for?) As for the web site, sounds like you just made yourself the pumpking, Scott. The message board is the only thing on my server, but Phoenix PM is welcome to it. I'm no where near my bandwidth/storage limit. I was drawing down my web/programming activity, but in the highly volatile airline industry and the state of UAL in particular, I am thinking that instead, this may be a good time to 'turn it up a notch.' I'm now very much available if anyone needs a project augmentee or temp help. Anyway, I've got fond memories of the Phoenix.PM crowd. Gatherings of good folks that enjoy Perl almost as much telling war stories about the good ol' days... Scott, thanks for your devotion to the group. I'll drop by if I ever am fortunate to have a PHX layover coincide with a PM meeting. Still lurking... Tim P.S. As much as I hate to retire the short pants for a few months, It was a total hoot to go sledding with my sons after our last major snow storm. From intertwingled at qwest.net Wed Dec 18 05:19:03 2002 From: intertwingled at qwest.net (intertwingled) Date: Thu Aug 5 00:16:53 2004 Subject: Phoenix.pm: phoenix.pm.org website "updates" In-Reply-To: <003001c2a658$05b0c940$a8a3a1ac@computer> References: <200212171712.gBHHCaHC005307@slowass.net> Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20021218041903.009dc7b0@pop.phnx.qwest.net> Are KH3 tablets illegal in the states? At 10:40 PM 12/17/02 -0700, you wrote: >Hi yous guys... Tim Beavers here. I'm sure no one really missed me... But >in case anyone is wondering where I am, I moved to NJ in June. No, I don't >watch "The Sopranos." > >I still enjoy being on the Pheonix.pm list though. It reminds me of how hot >my steering wheel would get sitting out in the Sky Harbor parking lot for >days at a time... > >I moved up to the 767, and since that is an international jet, I'm managing >to find my way to Europe 3 or 4 times a month. (Does anyone need anything? >Anything I won't get arrested for?) > >As for the web site, sounds like you just made yourself the pumpking, Scott. >The message board is the only thing on my server, but Phoenix PM is welcome >to it. I'm no where near my bandwidth/storage limit. > >I was drawing down my web/programming activity, but in the highly volatile >airline industry and the state of UAL in particular, I am thinking that >instead, this may be a good time to 'turn it up a notch.' I'm now very much >available if anyone needs a project augmentee or temp help. > >Anyway, I've got fond memories of the Phoenix.PM crowd. Gatherings of good >folks that enjoy Perl almost as much telling war stories about the good ol' >days... Scott, thanks for your devotion to the group. I'll drop by if I >ever am fortunate to have a PHX layover coincide with a PM meeting. > >Still lurking... > >Tim > >P.S. As much as I hate to retire the short pants for a few months, It was a >total hoot to go sledding with my sons after our last major snow storm. > > > > > > > -- even the safest course is fraught with peril From doug.miles at bpxinternet.com Wed Dec 18 11:02:42 2002 From: doug.miles at bpxinternet.com (Doug Miles) Date: Thu Aug 5 00:16:53 2004 Subject: Phoenix.pm: phoenix.pm.org website "updates" References: <200212171712.gBHHCaHC005307@slowass.net> <003001c2a658$05b0c940$a8a3a1ac@computer> Message-ID: <3E00AA32.8010702@bpxinternet.com> Webmaster wrote: > Hi yous guys... Tim Beavers here. I'm sure no one really missed me... But > in case anyone is wondering where I am, I moved to NJ in June. No, I don't > watch "The Sopranos." > > I still enjoy being on the Pheonix.pm list though. It reminds me of how hot > my steering wheel would get sitting out in the Sky Harbor parking lot for > days at a time... > > I moved up to the 767, and since that is an international jet, I'm managing > to find my way to Europe 3 or 4 times a month. (Does anyone need anything? > Anything I won't get arrested for?) > > As for the web site, sounds like you just made yourself the pumpking, Scott. > The message board is the only thing on my server, but Phoenix PM is welcome > to it. I'm no where near my bandwidth/storage limit. > > I was drawing down my web/programming activity, but in the highly volatile > airline industry and the state of UAL in particular, I am thinking that > instead, this may be a good time to 'turn it up a notch.' I'm now very much > available if anyone needs a project augmentee or temp help. > > Anyway, I've got fond memories of the Phoenix.PM crowd. Gatherings of good > folks that enjoy Perl almost as much telling war stories about the good ol' > days... Scott, thanks for your devotion to the group. I'll drop by if I > ever am fortunate to have a PHX layover coincide with a PM meeting. > > Still lurking... > > Tim > > P.S. As much as I hate to retire the short pants for a few months, It was a > total hoot to go sledding with my sons after our last major snow storm. Hey Tim! Great to hear from you. I for one, did wonder what happened to you... :) From scott at illogics.org Wed Dec 18 11:31:26 2002 From: scott at illogics.org (Scott Walters) Date: Thu Aug 5 00:16:53 2004 Subject: Phoenix.pm: phoenix.pm.org website "updates" In-Reply-To: from "" at Dec 17, 2002 10:40:48 PM Message-ID: <200212181731.gBIHVQKh013596@slowass.net> > > > Hi yous guys... Tim Beavers here. I'm sure no one really missed me... But Oh? How sure? We talk all the time about people that drop off the radar screen mysteriously. > in case anyone is wondering where I am, I moved to NJ in June. No, I don't > watch "The Sopranos." What prompted that? Your promotion? Quality of life? > > I still enjoy being on the Pheonix.pm list though. It reminds me of how hot > my steering wheel would get sitting out in the Sky Harbor parking lot for > days at a time... Remembering going to the car wash and having your window crack when the water hit it? Driving blind into the sun? Your air conditioning breaking and every thing made out of wax in your home melting? $200 summer cooling bills? Tubing in the rather yellow salt "river" with 1000 college kids? Yeah, Phoenix truely is a special place... > > I moved up to the 767, and since that is an international jet, I'm managing > to find my way to Europe 3 or 4 times a month. (Does anyone need anything? > Anything I won't get arrested for?) > > As for the web site, sounds like you just made yourself the pumpking, Scott. > The message board is the only thing on my server, but Phoenix PM is welcome > to it. I'm no where near my bandwidth/storage limit. > > I was drawing down my web/programming activity, but in the highly volatile > airline industry and the state of UAL in particular, I am thinking that > instead, this may be a good time to 'turn it up a notch.' I'm now very much > available if anyone needs a project augmentee or temp help. It looks like there is a lot of demand for programmers right now - if they have secret clearance. You could be in a good position right now, in your current job, to tap into that. > > Anyway, I've got fond memories of the Phoenix.PM crowd. Gatherings of good > folks that enjoy Perl almost as much telling war stories about the good ol' > days... Scott, thanks for your devotion to the group. I'll drop by if I > ever am fortunate to have a PHX layover coincide with a PM meeting. That would be trippy! -scott > > Still lurking... > > Tim > > P.S. As much as I hate to retire the short pants for a few months, It was a > total hoot to go sledding with my sons after our last major snow storm. > From wlindley at wlindley.com Thu Dec 19 10:37:54 2002 From: wlindley at wlindley.com (William Lindley) Date: Thu Aug 5 00:16:53 2004 Subject: Phoenix.pm: Dot.Bombs AZ Style (fwd) Message-ID: regarding DevelopOnline, Opnix, NeoPlanet... ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 08:54:16 -0700 (MST) From: Derek Neighbors To: plug-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us Subject: Dot.Bombs AZ Style For those that may not read the AZ Republic. I found it interesting to see on the _front_ page this blurb: Todays Top Five ( http://www.arizonarepublic.com/news/articles/1219A1rail19.html ) Dot.bombs ( http://arizonarepublic.com/business/articles/1219Dotbombs19.html ) Two high-profile Arizona companies founded when fervor for new Internet technologies was high have dot.bombed: DevelopOnline and Opnix. Business, D1. I only post this as I know both companies used GNU/Linux to varying extents and both companies had people involved in PLUG to some degree. Hopefully, the tech economy in this state will improve in the next 18 months so we can see success and not failure stories on the front page. :) -Derek --------------------------------------------------- PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change you mail settings: http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss