From wjm1 at caa.columbia.edu Mon Jul 4 05:45:18 2022 From: wjm1 at caa.columbia.edu (William Michels) Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2022 05:45:18 -0700 Subject: [sf-perl] Perl question on U&L StackExchange needs edit/update Message-ID: https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/352722/perl-script-to-manipulate-output-generated-from-a-command-line From doomvox at gmail.com Mon Jul 4 08:49:44 2022 From: doomvox at gmail.com (Joseph Brenner) Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2022 08:49:44 -0700 Subject: [sf-perl] Perl question on U&L StackExchange needs edit/update In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I think they closed this one because it's a little too much like "teach me how to use perl". He did have a specific question in there though, involving whether it would be better to use the file system or send the output to stdout. On 7/4/22, William Michels wrote: > https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/352722/perl-script-to-manipulate-output-generated-from-a-command-line > _______________________________________________ > SanFrancisco-pm mailing list > SanFrancisco-pm at pm.org > https://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/sanfrancisco-pm > From wjm1 at caa.columbia.edu Thu Jul 7 20:14:14 2022 From: wjm1 at caa.columbia.edu (William Michels) Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2022 20:14:14 -0700 Subject: [sf-perl] Stack Overflow Blog: "Why Perl is still relevant in 2022" Message-ID: July 6, 2022 Stack Overflow Blog: "Why Perl is still relevant in 2022" https://stackoverflow.blog/2022/07/06/why-perl-is-still-relevant-in-2022/ From not.com at gmail.com Fri Jul 8 15:47:48 2022 From: not.com at gmail.com (yary) Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2022 18:47:48 -0400 Subject: [sf-perl] Stack Overflow Blog: "Why Perl is still relevant in 2022" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Nice to see a positive article, even if it does start to look a little amateurish after a while- comments had some valid critiques. And it's still better than the nothing I've ever written for StackOverflow. Thanks for pointing it out! -y On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 11:15 PM William Michels wrote: > July 6, 2022 > Stack Overflow Blog: > "Why Perl is still relevant in 2022" > https://stackoverflow.blog/2022/07/06/why-perl-is-still-relevant-in-2022/ > _______________________________________________ > SanFrancisco-pm mailing list > SanFrancisco-pm at pm.org > https://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/sanfrancisco-pm > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gatorreina at gmail.com Fri Jul 8 16:28:39 2022 From: gatorreina at gmail.com (Richard Reina) Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2022 18:28:39 -0500 Subject: [sf-perl] Stack Overflow Blog: "Why Perl is still relevant in 2022" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks for sharing. My entire business, from order entry to book-keeping to my Perl Dancer website, runs on Perl programs that I have written over the last 22 years and I am still adding. I do wish that there were more AI libraries? so far all I?ve been able to use is Algorithm::NaiveBayes for document/text classification but I am nevertheless very grateful for Perl. Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 8, 2022, at 5:48 PM, yary wrote: > > ? > Nice to see a positive article, even if it does start to look a little amateurish after a while- comments had some valid critiques. And it's still better than the nothing I've ever written for StackOverflow. Thanks for pointing it out! > > -y > > >> On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 11:15 PM William Michels wrote: >> July 6, 2022 >> Stack Overflow Blog: >> "Why Perl is still relevant in 2022" >> https://stackoverflow.blog/2022/07/06/why-perl-is-still-relevant-in-2022/ >> _______________________________________________ >> SanFrancisco-pm mailing list >> SanFrancisco-pm at pm.org >> https://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/sanfrancisco-pm > _______________________________________________ > SanFrancisco-pm mailing list > SanFrancisco-pm at pm.org > https://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/sanfrancisco-pm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From el.dodgero at gmail.com Fri Jul 8 18:13:55 2022 From: el.dodgero at gmail.com (Sean Dodger Cannon) Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2022 18:13:55 -0700 Subject: [sf-perl] Stack Overflow Blog: "Why Perl is still relevant in 2022" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Honestly, it seemed to be written by an amateur from the first paragraph. I like the positivity in theory but it?s starting to look like denialism. Even the few Perl jobs out there are requiring you use ?modern perl?, read: ?load needless module overhead to make your OO code look like it isn?t Perl?, and treating you like an amateur if you didn?t climb onto the Moose ?perl cosplaying as java? bandwagon. Otherwise, we?re pretty much stuck searching for a Rosetta Stone to figure out how to do super advanced shit we?ve been doing for decades, but in python instead because it has a marketing department. Oh well. Such is life, and since I don?t see being able to ?use Tensorflow;? in the foreseeable future I guess I need to put on my big boy pants and make myself learn the weird, nonsense language of snakes instead. ? Dodger On Friday, 8 July 2022, yary wrote: > Nice to see a positive article, even if it does start to look a little > amateurish after a while- comments had some valid critiques. And it's still > better than the nothing I've ever written for StackOverflow. Thanks for > pointing it out! > > -y > > > On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 11:15 PM William Michels > wrote: > >> July 6, 2022 >> Stack Overflow Blog: >> "Why Perl is still relevant in 2022" >> https://stackoverflow.blog/2022/07/06/why-perl-is-still-relevant-in-2022/ >> _______________________________________________ >> SanFrancisco-pm mailing list >> SanFrancisco-pm at pm.org >> https://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/sanfrancisco-pm >> > -- S. Cannon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shlomif at shlomifish.org Fri Jul 8 20:23:19 2022 From: shlomif at shlomifish.org (Shlomi Fish) Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2022 06:23:19 +0300 Subject: [sf-perl] Stack Overflow Blog: "Why Perl is still relevant in 2022" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20220709062319.29538f33@shlomifish.org> Hi Mr. Dodger! On Fri, 8 Jul 2022 18:13:55 -0700 Sean Dodger Cannon wrote: > Honestly, it seemed to be written by an amateur from the first paragraph. > > I like the positivity in theory but it?s starting to look like denialism. > > Even the few Perl jobs out there are requiring you use ?modern perl?, read: > ?load needless module overhead to make your OO code look like it isn?t > Perl?, and treating you like an amateur if you didn?t climb onto the Moose > ?perl cosplaying as java? bandwagon. > Moose and Moo are not that bad, IMO, do not have a prohibitive overhead, and make writing Perl OOP code easier and cleaner: https://perl-begin.org/topics/object-oriented/ OOP predates java and Moose is very different from java's OOP: https://github.com/shlomif/Freenode-programming-channel-FAQ/blob/master/FAQ_with_ToC__generated.md#what-does-object-oriented-programming--oop--mean > Otherwise, we?re pretty much stuck searching for a Rosetta Stone to figure > out how to do super advanced shit we?ve been doing for decades, but in > python instead because it has a marketing department. > > Oh well. Such is life, and since I don?t see being able to ?use > Tensorflow;? in the foreseeable future I guess I need to put on my big boy > pants and make myself learn the weird, nonsense language of snakes instead. > Honestly, while I still love and use Perl 5, I also like Python 3 a lot: * https://www.shlomifish.org/meta/FAQ/thought_you_were_a_Perl_guy.xhtml Python is very easy to learn, and some people were able to tweak py code just by opening an existing codebase in a text editor. > ? > Dodger > > On Friday, 8 July 2022, yary wrote: > > > Nice to see a positive article, even if it does start to look a little > > amateurish after a while- comments had some valid critiques. And it's still > > better than the nothing I've ever written for StackOverflow. Thanks for > > pointing it out! > > > > -y > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 11:15 PM William Michels > > wrote: > > > >> July 6, 2022 > >> Stack Overflow Blog: > >> "Why Perl is still relevant in 2022" > >> https://stackoverflow.blog/2022/07/06/why-perl-is-still-relevant-in-2022/ > >> _______________________________________________ > >> SanFrancisco-pm mailing list > >> SanFrancisco-pm at pm.org > >> https://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/sanfrancisco-pm > >> > > > -- Shlomi Fish https://www.shlomifish.org/ List of Text Editors and IDEs - https://shlom.in/IDEs Everybody has their pet peeve. Except Chuck Norris. He can never become irritated. When somebody does something Chuck Norris disapproves of, he calmly kills them, and then goes on with the rest of his life. ? https://www.shlomifish.org/humour/bits/facts/Chuck-Norris/ Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - https://shlom.in/reply . From el.dodgero at gmail.com Sat Jul 9 00:54:45 2022 From: el.dodgero at gmail.com (Sean Dodger Cannon) Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2022 00:54:45 -0700 Subject: [sf-perl] Stack Overflow Blog: "Why Perl is still relevant in 2022" In-Reply-To: <20220709062319.29538f33@shlomifish.org> References: <20220709062319.29538f33@shlomifish.org> Message-ID: On Friday, 8 July 2022, Shlomi Fish wrote: > Hi Mr. Dodger! Hi Ms. or Mr. Schlomi! Moose and Moo are not that bad, IMO, do not have a prohibitive overhead, and > make writing Perl OOP code easier and cleaner: > > https://perl-begin.org/topics/object-oriented/ Uh, Ms. or Mr. Fish: I *know about them*. Nothing in my message indicated I was in any way unfamiliar with them. But in my opinion, they *don?t* make writing perl OO code easier and cleaner. They make writing perl OO code stupider and arbitrarily restrict it. And my Perl *was clean in the first place* because I?m anal about keeping it readable. I don?t golf. Isn?t it at all conceivable to you (or anyone else drinking the moose ?modern perl? flavor-aid) that there are people out here who know perfectly well what it is and just *don?t like it*? Not liking it doesn?t mean we don?t understand it or don?t know what it is. It just means we aren?t buying in to all this Moo* crap. OOP predates java and Moose is very different from java's OOP: > It was an obvious figure of speech. I was making fun of (^Moo(se)?). Again, I don?t need a condescending link to tell me what I already know about something I already assessed and decided is useless, wasteful crap. I don?t like it, I?m not going to like it, I don?t use it, I?m not going to use it, and I?m very unhappy that you moose lodge zealots have convinced all the pointy-haired managers that those of us who roll our eyes at that rubbish are somehow less talented or capable because it makes it harder to get jobs when a random shibboleth has been added for no reason. It was a dick move on y?all?s part. Quite honestly, I think that if you or anyone actually NEEDS Moo/Moose to ?make writing Perl OOP code easier and cleaner?, that if you actually thought Perl OO programming was *at all* hard and somehow needed that simplified for you, and that if you can?t write clean, readable, self-documenting code without a moose holding your hand, then maybe it?s not *me* who should be looked down on as the inferior programmer. Y?know? > Honestly, while I still love and use Perl 5, I also like Python 3 a lot: > > * https://www.shlomifish.org/meta/FAQ/thought_you_were_a_Perl_guy.xhtml > > Python is very easy to learn, and some people were able to tweak py code > just > by opening an existing codebase in a text editor. > >From what I?ve seen, yes, python is very easy to learn for people who *don?t already know how to program*. It is *not* one of the easier languages to transition to for a developer already fluent in any pascal-descendant language. It honestly comes off like someone described the idea of a programming language to someone who had never used one but was clever enough to come up with one from the description. Kudos to that, sure, but trying to learn it when fluent in a curly-brace language is like trying to learn Japanese when fluent in a Romance language. Is Japanese sensible? Sure. Is it strict? Absolutely. Is it efficient? Totally. Is it precise? Way more than English for sure. Is it anything like a Romance language? Not by leagues and fathoms. A perl programmer can pick up java, javascript, C, C++, C#, Objective C, and numerous other languages descended from pascal easily. But to jump from this paradigm to something completely weird like Python is actually harder than just learning Python in the first place from scratch. Just for instance, the thing that we call a ?string literal? is, in Python, referred to as a ?constant?. In Perl and other C/Pascal related languages, if constants exist at all the term means an immutable variable. A variable that can only by changed by re-assigning it (effectively overloading it). It cannot be changed ?in place?. Python doesn?t see this as anything special because that?s *all variables*. *Every* variable in Python is what Perl thinks of as a constant. Nothing can be changed in place and the assignment operator is the only way to alter that which is inside a variable (though at least you can go inside the assorted structs, you?re still using assignment). So, in effect, they differ down to the level of actually disagreeing on what the definitions of the words ?constant? and ?variable? are. I don?t know if you can get more fundamentally different than that. Another factor is that there aren?t really tutorials or classes for python that aren?t remedial for an advanced programmer of anything else. Throw in that ?we can?t even agree what constant means? problem and you have a perfect storm recipe for disaster in trying to transition. A newbie will actually benefit from chapter upon chapter in O?Reilly?s Learning Python on ?what is a variable? and ?what can you do with a variable? and ?what is a function? and so on. I?ve thumbed my way through that book and gotten halfway in before anything seemed actually instructional to an experienced programmer. So the solution should be ?ok skip it, go to the meat??except the constant problem. I mean that ?constant? problem. Just when you think things make sense, it?s all ?uhh WTF?? and you realise there?s some basic core concept that?s just treated totally differently in Python but the details about that are buried in the prior 300 pages you just skipped and you don?t know where. So what do you do? BS? Fake it ?til you make it and slog through? Or go back and read a decent sized novel?s worth of tedious, boring, almost insultingly remedial crap just to try to get at the one bigger buried in there you need? It would be like learning Icelandic and then realising you don?t know what ??? means but having to dig through 200-300 pages on the alphabet you already know because you don?t know where that would go in the alphabet and it?s not in an alphabetical order you recognise anyway. You want to learn a language but you?re stuck because you don?t know 1 or 1 of the ABCs, even though you know the rest. Quite a ? in the side, truly. Anyway, literally anyone who isn?t special needs can tweak python *or any other code at a higher level than assembly* just by opening an existing source code file in an editor, even if most people are afraid to do so. So of course that?s true. That said, I already admitted I need to try to make myself fluent in the ophidian language. Because as much as it pisses me off, there is one thing Python can provide that Perl really just can?t anymore (especially me that people who need baby talk Moose garbage hand-holding have convinced everyone that people who *don?t* aren?t as good somehow): An income ? Dodger -- S. Cannon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shlomif at shlomifish.org Sat Jul 9 01:46:29 2022 From: shlomif at shlomifish.org (Shlomi Fish) Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2022 11:46:29 +0300 Subject: [sf-perl] Stack Overflow Blog: "Why Perl is still relevant in 2022" In-Reply-To: References: <20220709062319.29538f33@shlomifish.org> Message-ID: <20220709114629.445ee618@shlomifish.org> hi, On Sat, 9 Jul 2022 00:54:45 -0700 Sean Dodger Cannon wrote: > On Friday, 8 July 2022, Shlomi Fish wrote: > > > Hi Mr. Dodger! > > > Hi Ms. or Mr. Schlomi! > it is "Mr." and "Shlomi" - https://www.shlomifish.org/meta/FAQ/ . > Moose and Moo are not that bad, IMO, do not have a prohibitive overhead, and > > make writing Perl OOP code easier and cleaner: > > > > https://perl-begin.org/topics/object-oriented/ > > > Uh, Ms. or Mr. Fish: I *know about them*. Nothing in my message indicated I > was in any way unfamiliar with them. > > But in my opinion, they *don?t* make writing perl OO code easier and > cleaner. They make writing perl OO code stupider and arbitrarily restrict > it. And my Perl *was clean in the first place* because I?m anal about > keeping it readable. I don?t golf. > > Isn?t it at all conceivable to you (or anyone else drinking the moose > ?modern perl? flavor-aid) that there are people out here who know perfectly > well what it is and just *don?t like it*? > > Not liking it doesn?t mean we don?t understand it or don?t know what it is. > > It just means we aren?t buying in to all this Moo* crap. > > OOP predates java and Moose is very different from java's OOP: > > > > It was an obvious figure of speech. I was making fun of (^Moo(se)?). Again, > I don?t need a condescending link to tell me what I already know about > something I already assessed and decided is useless, wasteful crap. > > I don?t like it, I?m not going to like it, I don?t use it, I?m not going to > use it, and I?m very unhappy that you moose lodge zealots have convinced > all the pointy-haired managers that those of us who roll our eyes at that > rubbish are somehow less talented or capable because it makes it harder to > get jobs when a random shibboleth has been added for no reason. It was a > dick move on y?all?s part. > > Quite honestly, I think that if you or anyone actually NEEDS Moo/Moose to > ?make writing Perl OOP code easier and cleaner?, that if you actually > thought Perl OO programming was *at all* hard and somehow needed that > simplified for you, and that if you can?t write clean, readable, > self-documenting code without a moose holding your hand, then maybe it?s > not *me* who should be looked down on as the inferior programmer. Y?know? > Moo provides enough hooks to write dirtier code if needed. And there's also the stoic method: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_L4qauTiCY4 . > > > Honestly, while I still love and use Perl 5, I also like Python 3 a lot: > > > > * https://www.shlomifish.org/meta/FAQ/thought_you_were_a_Perl_guy.xhtml > > > > Python is very easy to learn, and some people were able to tweak py code > > just > > by opening an existing codebase in a text editor. > > > > From what I?ve seen, yes, python is very easy to learn for people who > *don?t already know how to program*. > > It is *not* one of the easier languages to transition to for a developer > already fluent in any pascal-descendant language. It honestly comes off > like someone described the idea of a programming language to someone who > had never used one but was clever enough to come up with one from the > description. Kudos to that, sure, but trying to learn it when fluent in a > curly-brace language is like trying to learn Japanese when fluent in a > Romance language. > > Is Japanese sensible? Sure. Is it strict? Absolutely. Is it efficient? > Totally. Is it precise? Way more than English for sure. Is it anything like > a Romance language? Not by leagues and fathoms. > > A perl programmer can pick up java, javascript, C, C++, C#, Objective C, > and numerous other languages descended from pascal easily. > > But to jump from this paradigm to something completely weird like Python is > actually harder than just learning Python in the first place from scratch. > > Just for instance, the thing that we call a ?string literal? is, in Python, > referred to as a ?constant?. In Perl and other C/Pascal related languages, > if constants exist at all the term means an immutable variable. A variable > that can only by changed by re-assigning it (effectively overloading it). > It cannot be changed ?in place?. > > Python doesn?t see this as anything special because that?s *all variables*. > *Every* variable in Python is what Perl thinks of as a constant. Nothing > can be changed in place and the assignment operator is the only way to > alter that which is inside a variable (though at least you can go inside > the assorted structs, you?re still using assignment). > > So, in effect, they differ down to the level of actually disagreeing on > what the definitions of the words ?constant? and ?variable? are. I don?t > know if you can get more fundamentally different than that. > > Another factor is that there aren?t really tutorials or classes for python > that aren?t remedial for an advanced programmer of anything else. Throw in > that ?we can?t even agree what constant means? problem and you have a > perfect storm recipe for disaster in trying to transition. > > A newbie will actually benefit from chapter upon chapter in O?Reilly?s > Learning Python on ?what is a variable? and ?what can you do with a > variable? and ?what is a function? and so on. I?ve thumbed my way through > that book and gotten halfway in before anything seemed actually > instructional to an experienced programmer. > > So the solution should be ?ok skip it, go to the meat??except the constant > problem. I mean that ?constant? problem. Just when you think things make > sense, it?s all ?uhh WTF?? and you realise there?s some basic core concept > that?s just treated totally differently in Python but the details about > that are buried in the prior 300 pages you just skipped and you don?t know > where. > > So what do you do? BS? Fake it ?til you make it and slog through? Or go > back and read a decent sized novel?s worth of tedious, boring, almost > insultingly remedial crap just to try to get at the one bigger buried in > there you need? > > It would be like learning Icelandic and then realising you don?t know what > ??? means but having to dig through 200-300 pages on the alphabet you > already know because you don?t know where that would go in the alphabet and > it?s not in an alphabetical order you recognise anyway. You want to learn a > language but you?re stuck because you don?t know 1 or 1 of the ABCs, even > though you know the rest. Quite a ? in the side, truly. > > Anyway, literally anyone who isn?t special needs can tweak python *or any > other code at a higher level than assembly* just by opening an existing > source code file in an editor, even if most people are afraid to do so. So > of course that?s true. > i dont really believe in "knowing BASIC / C / perl / Fortran / etc. cripples your mind forever": * https://www.shlomifish.org/humour/fortunes/show.cgi?id=quora-learning-to-drum-at-65 * https://www.shlomifish.org/philosophy/philosophy/putting-cards-on-the-table-2019-2020/indiv-nodes/people-can-change.xhtml * https://www.perl.com/pub/2007/12/06/soto-11.html/ > That said, I already admitted I need to try to make myself fluent in the > ophidian language. Because as much as it pisses me off, there is one thing > Python can provide that Perl really just can?t anymore (especially me that > people who need baby talk Moose garbage hand-holding have convinced > everyone that people who *don?t* aren?t as good somehow): > > An income > good luck but note stand-up comedy here - https://www.shlomifish.org/humour/Buffy/A-Few-Good-Slayers/indiv-nodes/prospects-of-fighting-the-pseudo-vampires.xhtml > ? > Dodger > > > > -- Shlomi Fish https://www.shlomifish.org/ My Aphorisms - https://www.shlomifish.org/humour.html I don?t believe in Astrology, because I?m a Taurus, and Tauri never believe in Astrology. ? Source unknown Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - https://shlom.in/reply . From doomvox at gmail.com Sun Jul 10 12:07:30 2022 From: doomvox at gmail.com (Joseph Brenner) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2022 12:07:30 -0700 Subject: [sf-perl] Stack Overflow Blog: "Why Perl is still relevant in 2022" In-Reply-To: <20220709114629.445ee618@shlomifish.org> References: <20220709062319.29538f33@shlomifish.org> <20220709114629.445ee618@shlomifish.org> Message-ID: Myself, I'd make the point that the while the perl examples he presents are primitive by modern standards, they *do* still work for him, which is one of perl's strengths: a respect for backwards compatibility. On 7/9/22, Shlomi Fish wrote: > hi, > > On Sat, 9 Jul 2022 00:54:45 -0700 > Sean Dodger Cannon wrote: > >> On Friday, 8 July 2022, Shlomi Fish wrote: >> >> > Hi Mr. Dodger! >> >> >> Hi Ms. or Mr. Schlomi! >> > > it is "Mr." and "Shlomi" - https://www.shlomifish.org/meta/FAQ/ > . > >> Moose and Moo are not that bad, IMO, do not have a prohibitive overhead, >> and >> > make writing Perl OOP code easier and cleaner: >> > >> > https://perl-begin.org/topics/object-oriented/ >> >> >> Uh, Ms. or Mr. Fish: I *know about them*. Nothing in my message indicated >> I >> was in any way unfamiliar with them. >> >> But in my opinion, they *don?t* make writing perl OO code easier and >> cleaner. They make writing perl OO code stupider and arbitrarily restrict >> it. And my Perl *was clean in the first place* because I?m anal about >> keeping it readable. I don?t golf. >> >> Isn?t it at all conceivable to you (or anyone else drinking the moose >> ?modern perl? flavor-aid) that there are people out here who know >> perfectly >> well what it is and just *don?t like it*? >> >> Not liking it doesn?t mean we don?t understand it or don?t know what it >> is. >> >> It just means we aren?t buying in to all this Moo* crap. >> >> OOP predates java and Moose is very different from java's OOP: >> > >> >> It was an obvious figure of speech. I was making fun of (^Moo(se)?). >> Again, >> I don?t need a condescending link to tell me what I already know about >> something I already assessed and decided is useless, wasteful crap. >> >> I don?t like it, I?m not going to like it, I don?t use it, I?m not going >> to >> use it, and I?m very unhappy that you moose lodge zealots have convinced >> all the pointy-haired managers that those of us who roll our eyes at that >> rubbish are somehow less talented or capable because it makes it harder to >> get jobs when a random shibboleth has been added for no reason. It was a >> dick move on y?all?s part. >> >> Quite honestly, I think that if you or anyone actually NEEDS Moo/Moose to >> ?make writing Perl OOP code easier and cleaner?, that if you actually >> thought Perl OO programming was *at all* hard and somehow needed that >> simplified for you, and that if you can?t write clean, readable, >> self-documenting code without a moose holding your hand, then maybe it?s >> not *me* who should be looked down on as the inferior programmer. Y?know? >> > > Moo provides enough hooks to write dirtier code if needed. And there's also > the > stoic method: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_L4qauTiCY4 . > >> >> > Honestly, while I still love and use Perl 5, I also like Python 3 a lot: >> > >> > * https://www.shlomifish.org/meta/FAQ/thought_you_were_a_Perl_guy.xhtml >> > >> > Python is very easy to learn, and some people were able to tweak py code >> > just >> > by opening an existing codebase in a text editor. >> > >> >> From what I?ve seen, yes, python is very easy to learn for people who >> *don?t already know how to program*. >> >> It is *not* one of the easier languages to transition to for a developer >> already fluent in any pascal-descendant language. It honestly comes off >> like someone described the idea of a programming language to someone who >> had never used one but was clever enough to come up with one from the >> description. Kudos to that, sure, but trying to learn it when fluent in a >> curly-brace language is like trying to learn Japanese when fluent in a >> Romance language. >> >> Is Japanese sensible? Sure. Is it strict? Absolutely. Is it efficient? >> Totally. Is it precise? Way more than English for sure. Is it anything >> like >> a Romance language? Not by leagues and fathoms. >> >> A perl programmer can pick up java, javascript, C, C++, C#, Objective C, >> and numerous other languages descended from pascal easily. >> >> But to jump from this paradigm to something completely weird like Python >> is >> actually harder than just learning Python in the first place from scratch. >> >> Just for instance, the thing that we call a ?string literal? is, in >> Python, >> referred to as a ?constant?. In Perl and other C/Pascal related languages, >> if constants exist at all the term means an immutable variable. A variable >> that can only by changed by re-assigning it (effectively overloading it). >> It cannot be changed ?in place?. >> >> Python doesn?t see this as anything special because that?s *all >> variables*. >> *Every* variable in Python is what Perl thinks of as a constant. Nothing >> can be changed in place and the assignment operator is the only way to >> alter that which is inside a variable (though at least you can go inside >> the assorted structs, you?re still using assignment). >> >> So, in effect, they differ down to the level of actually disagreeing on >> what the definitions of the words ?constant? and ?variable? are. I don?t >> know if you can get more fundamentally different than that. >> >> Another factor is that there aren?t really tutorials or classes for python >> that aren?t remedial for an advanced programmer of anything else. Throw in >> that ?we can?t even agree what constant means? problem and you have a >> perfect storm recipe for disaster in trying to transition. >> >> A newbie will actually benefit from chapter upon chapter in O?Reilly?s >> Learning Python on ?what is a variable? and ?what can you do with a >> variable? and ?what is a function? and so on. I?ve thumbed my way through >> that book and gotten halfway in before anything seemed actually >> instructional to an experienced programmer. >> >> So the solution should be ?ok skip it, go to the meat??except the constant >> problem. I mean that ?constant? problem. Just when you think things make >> sense, it?s all ?uhh WTF?? and you realise there?s some basic core concept >> that?s just treated totally differently in Python but the details about >> that are buried in the prior 300 pages you just skipped and you don?t know >> where. >> >> So what do you do? BS? Fake it ?til you make it and slog through? Or go >> back and read a decent sized novel?s worth of tedious, boring, almost >> insultingly remedial crap just to try to get at the one bigger buried in >> there you need? >> >> It would be like learning Icelandic and then realising you don?t know what >> ??? means but having to dig through 200-300 pages on the alphabet you >> already know because you don?t know where that would go in the alphabet >> and >> it?s not in an alphabetical order you recognise anyway. You want to learn >> a >> language but you?re stuck because you don?t know 1 or 1 of the ABCs, even >> though you know the rest. Quite a ? in the side, truly. >> >> Anyway, literally anyone who isn?t special needs can tweak python *or any >> other code at a higher level than assembly* just by opening an existing >> source code file in an editor, even if most people are afraid to do so. So >> of course that?s true. >> > > i dont really believe in "knowing BASIC / C / perl / Fortran / etc. cripples > your mind forever": > > * > https://www.shlomifish.org/humour/fortunes/show.cgi?id=quora-learning-to-drum-at-65 > > * > https://www.shlomifish.org/philosophy/philosophy/putting-cards-on-the-table-2019-2020/indiv-nodes/people-can-change.xhtml > > * https://www.perl.com/pub/2007/12/06/soto-11.html/ > >> That said, I already admitted I need to try to make myself fluent in the >> ophidian language. Because as much as it pisses me off, there is one thing >> Python can provide that Perl really just can?t anymore (especially me that >> people who need baby talk Moose garbage hand-holding have convinced >> everyone that people who *don?t* aren?t as good somehow): >> >> An income >> > > good luck but note stand-up comedy here - > https://www.shlomifish.org/humour/Buffy/A-Few-Good-Slayers/indiv-nodes/prospects-of-fighting-the-pseudo-vampires.xhtml > >> ? >> Dodger >> >> >> >> > > > > -- > > Shlomi Fish https://www.shlomifish.org/ > My Aphorisms - https://www.shlomifish.org/humour.html > > I don?t believe in Astrology, because I?m a Taurus, and Tauri never believe > in > Astrology. ? Source unknown > > Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - https://shlom.in/reply . > _______________________________________________ > SanFrancisco-pm mailing list > SanFrancisco-pm at pm.org > https://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/sanfrancisco-pm > From doomvox at gmail.com Sun Jul 10 12:20:56 2022 From: doomvox at gmail.com (Joseph Brenner) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2022 12:20:56 -0700 Subject: [sf-perl] The SF Perl Raku Study Group, 07/10 at 1pm PDT Message-ID: "The sciences, even the best,-- mathematics and astronomy,-- are like sportsmen, who seize whatever prey offers, even without being able to make any use of it." --Ralph Waldo Emerson, "Plato, or, the Philosopher" The Raku Study Group July 10, 2022 1pm in California, 9pm in the UK Zoom meeting link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/85610768539?pwd=blZVMzhZVENSQTRtQ21tN0VleHNGUT09 Passcode: 4RakuRoll https://www.meetup.com/san-francisco-perl/events/287108626/ From el.dodgero at gmail.com Mon Jul 11 03:45:48 2022 From: el.dodgero at gmail.com (Sean Dodger Cannon) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2022 03:45:48 -0700 Subject: [sf-perl] Stack Overflow Blog: "Why Perl is still relevant in 2022" In-Reply-To: References: <20220709062319.29538f33@shlomifish.org> <20220709114629.445ee618@shlomifish.org> Message-ID: I don't know if "he" refers to me or Mr. Schlomi. I don't see where either of us posted any perl examples, primitive or otherwise. Or do you mean the person who wrote the article in the OP? On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 at 12:07, Joseph Brenner wrote: > Myself, I'd make the point that the while the perl examples he > presents are primitive by modern standards, they *do* still work for > him, which is one of perl's strengths: a respect for backwards > compatibility. > > > > On 7/9/22, Shlomi Fish wrote: > > hi, > > > > On Sat, 9 Jul 2022 00:54:45 -0700 > > Sean Dodger Cannon wrote: > > > >> On Friday, 8 July 2022, Shlomi Fish wrote: > >> > >> > Hi Mr. Dodger! > >> > >> > >> Hi Ms. or Mr. Schlomi! > >> > > > > it is "Mr." and "Shlomi" - https://www.shlomifish.org/meta/FAQ/ > > . > > > >> Moose and Moo are not that bad, IMO, do not have a prohibitive overhead, > >> and > >> > make writing Perl OOP code easier and cleaner: > >> > > >> > https://perl-begin.org/topics/object-oriented/ > >> > >> > >> Uh, Ms. or Mr. Fish: I *know about them*. Nothing in my message > indicated > >> I > >> was in any way unfamiliar with them. > >> > >> But in my opinion, they *don?t* make writing perl OO code easier and > >> cleaner. They make writing perl OO code stupider and arbitrarily > restrict > >> it. And my Perl *was clean in the first place* because I?m anal about > >> keeping it readable. I don?t golf. > >> > >> Isn?t it at all conceivable to you (or anyone else drinking the moose > >> ?modern perl? flavor-aid) that there are people out here who know > >> perfectly > >> well what it is and just *don?t like it*? > >> > >> Not liking it doesn?t mean we don?t understand it or don?t know what it > >> is. > >> > >> It just means we aren?t buying in to all this Moo* crap. > >> > >> OOP predates java and Moose is very different from java's OOP: > >> > > >> > >> It was an obvious figure of speech. I was making fun of (^Moo(se)?). > >> Again, > >> I don?t need a condescending link to tell me what I already know about > >> something I already assessed and decided is useless, wasteful crap. > >> > >> I don?t like it, I?m not going to like it, I don?t use it, I?m not going > >> to > >> use it, and I?m very unhappy that you moose lodge zealots have convinced > >> all the pointy-haired managers that those of us who roll our eyes at > that > >> rubbish are somehow less talented or capable because it makes it harder > to > >> get jobs when a random shibboleth has been added for no reason. It was a > >> dick move on y?all?s part. > >> > >> Quite honestly, I think that if you or anyone actually NEEDS Moo/Moose > to > >> ?make writing Perl OOP code easier and cleaner?, that if you actually > >> thought Perl OO programming was *at all* hard and somehow needed that > >> simplified for you, and that if you can?t write clean, readable, > >> self-documenting code without a moose holding your hand, then maybe it?s > >> not *me* who should be looked down on as the inferior programmer. > Y?know? > >> > > > > Moo provides enough hooks to write dirtier code if needed. And there's > also > > the > > stoic method: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_L4qauTiCY4 . > > > >> > >> > Honestly, while I still love and use Perl 5, I also like Python 3 a > lot: > >> > > >> > * > https://www.shlomifish.org/meta/FAQ/thought_you_were_a_Perl_guy.xhtml > >> > > >> > Python is very easy to learn, and some people were able to tweak py > code > >> > just > >> > by opening an existing codebase in a text editor. > >> > > >> > >> From what I?ve seen, yes, python is very easy to learn for people who > >> *don?t already know how to program*. > >> > >> It is *not* one of the easier languages to transition to for a developer > >> already fluent in any pascal-descendant language. It honestly comes off > >> like someone described the idea of a programming language to someone who > >> had never used one but was clever enough to come up with one from the > >> description. Kudos to that, sure, but trying to learn it when fluent in > a > >> curly-brace language is like trying to learn Japanese when fluent in a > >> Romance language. > >> > >> Is Japanese sensible? Sure. Is it strict? Absolutely. Is it efficient? > >> Totally. Is it precise? Way more than English for sure. Is it anything > >> like > >> a Romance language? Not by leagues and fathoms. > >> > >> A perl programmer can pick up java, javascript, C, C++, C#, Objective C, > >> and numerous other languages descended from pascal easily. > >> > >> But to jump from this paradigm to something completely weird like Python > >> is > >> actually harder than just learning Python in the first place from > scratch. > >> > >> Just for instance, the thing that we call a ?string literal? is, in > >> Python, > >> referred to as a ?constant?. In Perl and other C/Pascal related > languages, > >> if constants exist at all the term means an immutable variable. A > variable > >> that can only by changed by re-assigning it (effectively overloading > it). > >> It cannot be changed ?in place?. > >> > >> Python doesn?t see this as anything special because that?s *all > >> variables*. > >> *Every* variable in Python is what Perl thinks of as a constant. Nothing > >> can be changed in place and the assignment operator is the only way to > >> alter that which is inside a variable (though at least you can go inside > >> the assorted structs, you?re still using assignment). > >> > >> So, in effect, they differ down to the level of actually disagreeing on > >> what the definitions of the words ?constant? and ?variable? are. I don?t > >> know if you can get more fundamentally different than that. > >> > >> Another factor is that there aren?t really tutorials or classes for > python > >> that aren?t remedial for an advanced programmer of anything else. Throw > in > >> that ?we can?t even agree what constant means? problem and you have a > >> perfect storm recipe for disaster in trying to transition. > >> > >> A newbie will actually benefit from chapter upon chapter in O?Reilly?s > >> Learning Python on ?what is a variable? and ?what can you do with a > >> variable? and ?what is a function? and so on. I?ve thumbed my way > through > >> that book and gotten halfway in before anything seemed actually > >> instructional to an experienced programmer. > >> > >> So the solution should be ?ok skip it, go to the meat??except the > constant > >> problem. I mean that ?constant? problem. Just when you think things make > >> sense, it?s all ?uhh WTF?? and you realise there?s some basic core > concept > >> that?s just treated totally differently in Python but the details about > >> that are buried in the prior 300 pages you just skipped and you don?t > know > >> where. > >> > >> So what do you do? BS? Fake it ?til you make it and slog through? Or go > >> back and read a decent sized novel?s worth of tedious, boring, almost > >> insultingly remedial crap just to try to get at the one bigger buried in > >> there you need? > >> > >> It would be like learning Icelandic and then realising you don?t know > what > >> ??? means but having to dig through 200-300 pages on the alphabet you > >> already know because you don?t know where that would go in the alphabet > >> and > >> it?s not in an alphabetical order you recognise anyway. You want to > learn > >> a > >> language but you?re stuck because you don?t know 1 or 1 of the ABCs, > even > >> though you know the rest. Quite a ? in the side, truly. > >> > >> Anyway, literally anyone who isn?t special needs can tweak python *or > any > >> other code at a higher level than assembly* just by opening an existing > >> source code file in an editor, even if most people are afraid to do so. > So > >> of course that?s true. > >> > > > > i dont really believe in "knowing BASIC / C / perl / Fortran / etc. > cripples > > your mind forever": > > > > * > > > https://www.shlomifish.org/humour/fortunes/show.cgi?id=quora-learning-to-drum-at-65 > > > > * > > > https://www.shlomifish.org/philosophy/philosophy/putting-cards-on-the-table-2019-2020/indiv-nodes/people-can-change.xhtml > > > > * https://www.perl.com/pub/2007/12/06/soto-11.html/ > > > >> That said, I already admitted I need to try to make myself fluent in the > >> ophidian language. Because as much as it pisses me off, there is one > thing > >> Python can provide that Perl really just can?t anymore (especially me > that > >> people who need baby talk Moose garbage hand-holding have convinced > >> everyone that people who *don?t* aren?t as good somehow): > >> > >> An income > >> > > > > good luck but note stand-up comedy here - > > > https://www.shlomifish.org/humour/Buffy/A-Few-Good-Slayers/indiv-nodes/prospects-of-fighting-the-pseudo-vampires.xhtml > > > >> ? > >> Dodger > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Shlomi Fish https://www.shlomifish.org/ > > My Aphorisms - https://www.shlomifish.org/humour.html > > > > I don?t believe in Astrology, because I?m a Taurus, and Tauri never > believe > > in > > Astrology. ? Source unknown > > > > Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - > https://shlom.in/reply . > > _______________________________________________ > > SanFrancisco-pm mailing list > > SanFrancisco-pm at pm.org > > https://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/sanfrancisco-pm > > > -- S. Cannon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From doomvox at gmail.com Mon Jul 11 11:38:46 2022 From: doomvox at gmail.com (Joseph Brenner) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2022 11:38:46 -0700 Subject: [sf-perl] Stack Overflow Blog: "Why Perl is still relevant in 2022" In-Reply-To: References: <20220709062319.29538f33@shlomifish.org> <20220709114629.445ee618@shlomifish.org> Message-ID: > Or do you mean the person who wrote the article in the OP Yes, precisely. I probably should've attached my comment to Yary's. On 7/11/22, Sean Dodger Cannon wrote: > I don't know if "he" refers to me or Mr. Schlomi. I don't see where either > of us posted any perl examples, primitive or otherwise. > > Or do you mean the person who wrote the article in the OP? > > On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 at 12:07, Joseph Brenner wrote: > >> Myself, I'd make the point that the while the perl examples he >> presents are primitive by modern standards, they *do* still work for >> him, which is one of perl's strengths: a respect for backwards >> compatibility. >> >> >> >> On 7/9/22, Shlomi Fish wrote: >> > hi, >> > >> > On Sat, 9 Jul 2022 00:54:45 -0700 >> > Sean Dodger Cannon wrote: >> > >> >> On Friday, 8 July 2022, Shlomi Fish wrote: >> >> >> >> > Hi Mr. Dodger! >> >> >> >> >> >> Hi Ms. or Mr. Schlomi! >> >> >> > >> > it is "Mr." and "Shlomi" - https://www.shlomifish.org/meta/FAQ/ >> > . >> > >> >> Moose and Moo are not that bad, IMO, do not have a prohibitive >> >> overhead, >> >> and >> >> > make writing Perl OOP code easier and cleaner: >> >> > >> >> > https://perl-begin.org/topics/object-oriented/ >> >> >> >> >> >> Uh, Ms. or Mr. Fish: I *know about them*. Nothing in my message >> indicated >> >> I >> >> was in any way unfamiliar with them. >> >> >> >> But in my opinion, they *don?t* make writing perl OO code easier and >> >> cleaner. They make writing perl OO code stupider and arbitrarily >> restrict >> >> it. And my Perl *was clean in the first place* because I?m anal about >> >> keeping it readable. I don?t golf. >> >> >> >> Isn?t it at all conceivable to you (or anyone else drinking the moose >> >> ?modern perl? flavor-aid) that there are people out here who know >> >> perfectly >> >> well what it is and just *don?t like it*? >> >> >> >> Not liking it doesn?t mean we don?t understand it or don?t know what >> >> it >> >> is. >> >> >> >> It just means we aren?t buying in to all this Moo* crap. >> >> >> >> OOP predates java and Moose is very different from java's OOP: >> >> > >> >> >> >> It was an obvious figure of speech. I was making fun of (^Moo(se)?). >> >> Again, >> >> I don?t need a condescending link to tell me what I already know about >> >> something I already assessed and decided is useless, wasteful crap. >> >> >> >> I don?t like it, I?m not going to like it, I don?t use it, I?m not >> >> going >> >> to >> >> use it, and I?m very unhappy that you moose lodge zealots have >> >> convinced >> >> all the pointy-haired managers that those of us who roll our eyes at >> that >> >> rubbish are somehow less talented or capable because it makes it >> >> harder >> to >> >> get jobs when a random shibboleth has been added for no reason. It was >> >> a >> >> dick move on y?all?s part. >> >> >> >> Quite honestly, I think that if you or anyone actually NEEDS Moo/Moose >> to >> >> ?make writing Perl OOP code easier and cleaner?, that if you actually >> >> thought Perl OO programming was *at all* hard and somehow needed that >> >> simplified for you, and that if you can?t write clean, readable, >> >> self-documenting code without a moose holding your hand, then maybe >> >> it?s >> >> not *me* who should be looked down on as the inferior programmer. >> Y?know? >> >> >> > >> > Moo provides enough hooks to write dirtier code if needed. And there's >> also >> > the >> > stoic method: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_L4qauTiCY4 . >> > >> >> >> >> > Honestly, while I still love and use Perl 5, I also like Python 3 a >> lot: >> >> > >> >> > * >> https://www.shlomifish.org/meta/FAQ/thought_you_were_a_Perl_guy.xhtml >> >> > >> >> > Python is very easy to learn, and some people were able to tweak py >> code >> >> > just >> >> > by opening an existing codebase in a text editor. >> >> > >> >> >> >> From what I?ve seen, yes, python is very easy to learn for people who >> >> *don?t already know how to program*. >> >> >> >> It is *not* one of the easier languages to transition to for a >> >> developer >> >> already fluent in any pascal-descendant language. It honestly comes >> >> off >> >> like someone described the idea of a programming language to someone >> >> who >> >> had never used one but was clever enough to come up with one from the >> >> description. Kudos to that, sure, but trying to learn it when fluent >> >> in >> a >> >> curly-brace language is like trying to learn Japanese when fluent in a >> >> Romance language. >> >> >> >> Is Japanese sensible? Sure. Is it strict? Absolutely. Is it efficient? >> >> Totally. Is it precise? Way more than English for sure. Is it anything >> >> like >> >> a Romance language? Not by leagues and fathoms. >> >> >> >> A perl programmer can pick up java, javascript, C, C++, C#, Objective >> >> C, >> >> and numerous other languages descended from pascal easily. >> >> >> >> But to jump from this paradigm to something completely weird like >> >> Python >> >> is >> >> actually harder than just learning Python in the first place from >> scratch. >> >> >> >> Just for instance, the thing that we call a ?string literal? is, in >> >> Python, >> >> referred to as a ?constant?. In Perl and other C/Pascal related >> languages, >> >> if constants exist at all the term means an immutable variable. A >> variable >> >> that can only by changed by re-assigning it (effectively overloading >> it). >> >> It cannot be changed ?in place?. >> >> >> >> Python doesn?t see this as anything special because that?s *all >> >> variables*. >> >> *Every* variable in Python is what Perl thinks of as a constant. >> >> Nothing >> >> can be changed in place and the assignment operator is the only way to >> >> alter that which is inside a variable (though at least you can go >> >> inside >> >> the assorted structs, you?re still using assignment). >> >> >> >> So, in effect, they differ down to the level of actually disagreeing >> >> on >> >> what the definitions of the words ?constant? and ?variable? are. I >> >> don?t >> >> know if you can get more fundamentally different than that. >> >> >> >> Another factor is that there aren?t really tutorials or classes for >> python >> >> that aren?t remedial for an advanced programmer of anything else. >> >> Throw >> in >> >> that ?we can?t even agree what constant means? problem and you have a >> >> perfect storm recipe for disaster in trying to transition. >> >> >> >> A newbie will actually benefit from chapter upon chapter in O?Reilly?s >> >> Learning Python on ?what is a variable? and ?what can you do with a >> >> variable? and ?what is a function? and so on. I?ve thumbed my way >> through >> >> that book and gotten halfway in before anything seemed actually >> >> instructional to an experienced programmer. >> >> >> >> So the solution should be ?ok skip it, go to the meat??except the >> constant >> >> problem. I mean that ?constant? problem. Just when you think things >> >> make >> >> sense, it?s all ?uhh WTF?? and you realise there?s some basic core >> concept >> >> that?s just treated totally differently in Python but the details >> >> about >> >> that are buried in the prior 300 pages you just skipped and you don?t >> know >> >> where. >> >> >> >> So what do you do? BS? Fake it ?til you make it and slog through? Or >> >> go >> >> back and read a decent sized novel?s worth of tedious, boring, almost >> >> insultingly remedial crap just to try to get at the one bigger buried >> >> in >> >> there you need? >> >> >> >> It would be like learning Icelandic and then realising you don?t know >> what >> >> ??? means but having to dig through 200-300 pages on the alphabet you >> >> already know because you don?t know where that would go in the >> >> alphabet >> >> and >> >> it?s not in an alphabetical order you recognise anyway. You want to >> learn >> >> a >> >> language but you?re stuck because you don?t know 1 or 1 of the ABCs, >> even >> >> though you know the rest. Quite a ? in the side, truly. >> >> >> >> Anyway, literally anyone who isn?t special needs can tweak python *or >> any >> >> other code at a higher level than assembly* just by opening an >> >> existing >> >> source code file in an editor, even if most people are afraid to do >> >> so. >> So >> >> of course that?s true. >> >> >> > >> > i dont really believe in "knowing BASIC / C / perl / Fortran / etc. >> cripples >> > your mind forever": >> > >> > * >> > >> https://www.shlomifish.org/humour/fortunes/show.cgi?id=quora-learning-to-drum-at-65 >> > >> > * >> > >> https://www.shlomifish.org/philosophy/philosophy/putting-cards-on-the-table-2019-2020/indiv-nodes/people-can-change.xhtml >> > >> > * https://www.perl.com/pub/2007/12/06/soto-11.html/ >> > >> >> That said, I already admitted I need to try to make myself fluent in >> >> the >> >> ophidian language. Because as much as it pisses me off, there is one >> thing >> >> Python can provide that Perl really just can?t anymore (especially me >> that >> >> people who need baby talk Moose garbage hand-holding have convinced >> >> everyone that people who *don?t* aren?t as good somehow): >> >> >> >> An income >> >> >> > >> > good luck but note stand-up comedy here - >> > >> https://www.shlomifish.org/humour/Buffy/A-Few-Good-Slayers/indiv-nodes/prospects-of-fighting-the-pseudo-vampires.xhtml >> > >> >> ? >> >> Dodger >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > >> > Shlomi Fish https://www.shlomifish.org/ >> > My Aphorisms - https://www.shlomifish.org/humour.html >> > >> > I don?t believe in Astrology, because I?m a Taurus, and Tauri never >> believe >> > in >> > Astrology. ? Source unknown >> > >> > Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - >> https://shlom.in/reply . >> > _______________________________________________ >> > SanFrancisco-pm mailing list >> > SanFrancisco-pm at pm.org >> > https://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/sanfrancisco-pm >> > >> > > > -- > S. Cannon > From doomvox at gmail.com Wed Jul 20 18:09:58 2022 From: doomvox at gmail.com (Joseph Brenner) Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2022 18:09:58 -0700 Subject: [sf-perl] The SF Perl Raku Study Group, 07/24 at 1pm PDT Message-ID: "Coevolution and symbiosis are fundamentally about relationships, and those change over time. A pet rat, a lab rat, a plague of rats and rats of unusual size all have different relationships with human beings, but they're all rats, and we're all humans." Frank Landis, "Hot Earth Dreams" (2016) The Raku Study Group. July 24th, 2020 1pm in California, 9pm in the UK Zoom meeting link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/85209304493?pwd=YWJrdEJ3ZGhRYkRScDdOUllTbzlaUT09 Passcode: 4RakuRoll RSVPs are useful, though not needed: https://www.meetup.com/san-francisco-perl/events/287317179/