Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users
Google

Web Adequacy.org
Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an unofficial archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page or the footnote if you have questions.
 On why Pearl is not like natural language (Part I)

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Jun 03, 2002
 Comments:
There's this guy I vaguely know, a friend of a friend of a friend. Let's call him "Rick". I used to live in Silly Valley, and still frequently go visit for professional reasons. Rick has long hair and a beard, which he really should wash once in a while (not to mention the rest of his body). He is one of these people who calls himself a hacker yet seems to believe he has not confessed to a felony in so doing.
perl

More stories about Perl
Pearl vs. Python: A Technical Review

More stories by
em

Yumi bai spikim Tok Pisin nau!
The Adequacy.org Guide to Cheap Legal Highs: Garlic
The Adequacy.org Guide to Cheap Legal Highs: Capsaicin
German, the language of the Nazis
Women responsible for society's ills
Chile to bomb the U.S.A.
Review: Fred Fortin, 'Le Plancher des Vaches'
The Adequacy.org Guide to Airplane Hijacking in the Post-WTC Era
Hijacked plane crash destroys Canary Wharf; Shocked Americans ask, `What's Canary Wharf?'
Review: Willie Col?n, `Lo Mato'
Starving Afghanis Flock to Bombing Targets for Free Food
Genetic Warfare and Matrilineal Cultures
Some major flaws in Evolutionary Theory
Classic rerelases: Caf? Tacuba, Les Cowboys Fringants
The sky: a revisionist examination
The Adequacy.org Guide to the Cuisines of the World: Poutine
The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, terrorism, and decolonisation
An instance of Western cultural chauvinism
On criminal language and the word `hacker'
World Music Review: Ozomatli, `Embrace the Chaos'
Anyway, at some random party thrown by some random PARC or SRI researcher, I run into Rick, and have the displeasure for the first time of having a conversation with him. He asks me: "So, what do you do? I'm a computer hacker."

"I'm a linguist," I reply.

"Oh, so you must know about Larry Wall!"

"Larry who?"

"Larry Wall. He's a very famous linguist! He invented my favorite programming language, Pearl. It's a programming language which he designed to be just like natural languages, because he's a linguist!", Rick insisted.

"No, never heard of him or the langauge. Hey, my girlfriend is calling me over, talk to you later," and I escaped. Stinky bastard, that Rick.

However, I was intrigued. A programming language designed to be like a natural language? Hey, that sounds interesting! So, the next day, I consult the pasty blundergrad intern that all the easy stuff in my project is delegated to (i.e. all the programing tasks), and he lends me his copy of Programming Pearl, 3rd edition.

Really bad first impressions

The book turns out to be a jumbled, incomprehensible, sprawling mess of word wank. Over 1000 pages, and each seems to presuppose knowledge of the other 999 or so.

At first, it left me thinking that the worst of all was the "humorous" and condescending style in which the book is written. But then I ran into the authors' explanation of the one thing that led me to the book in the first place, the supposed "natural language" influence on the design:

So in our natural languages, we have many ways of sweeping complexity under the carpet. Many of these fall under the category of topicalization, which is just a fancy linguistics term for agreeing with someone about what you're going to talk about. (p. 14)
Nope. Topicalization is a grammatical construction for marking "old" referents in the discourse; e.g. by preposing constituents, as in "That book, I think I don't want", or the well-known wa marker in Japanese. Whatever these Pearl guys are talking about is at best marginally related to topicalization. And in the following sentences, they make it even worse:
This happens in many levels in language. On a high level, we divide ourselves up into various subcultures that are interested in various subtopics and establish sublanguages that talk primarily about those topics. The lingo of the doctor's office [...] (p. 14)
These guys are just faking it. What they are describing is a commonplace stuff from sociolinguistics. Social dialect is a good term for what they describe. Topicalization certainly isn't. The only evident purpose the word "topicalization" serves in this passage is as a fancy linguistics term to project a false appearance of authority by impressing those who don't know. Given how rarified even basic knowledge of linguistics is in the world, the authors, in their drive to impress, feel like they don't even have to bother to get it right.

I can almost hear some infuriated Rick-like hacker crying out: "Hey, but they're just using an analogy! Who cares about such useless things such as the real meaning of topicalization? They trying to teach a programming language, not linguistics!" To which the obvious answer is that an analogy based on a concept your audience doesn't understand has no pedagogical use. You're supposed to explain stuff to people in terms of stuff they understand.

Anyway the book is 1000+ pages of this-- self-aggrandisement by (mis)use of linguistic terminology, bad jokes, condescencion, presupposition of unexplained concepts, and nowhere anything useful for somebody trying to learn the language. Please don't buy this book.

The famous linguist

The other thing I wondered about was about the work of this Larry Wall fellow. How come Rick had insisted that he was a famous linguist, yet I'd never heard the name? Perhaps he worked on something I'm not up to date on, like Type-Logical Grammar in one version or another. Thus, I decided to acquaint myself with the linguistic work of Larry Wall.

I searched the MLA database, the LLBA database, the SIL bibliography, and a couple other minor indices of articles on Linguistics. Nothing turned up. Larry Wall does indeed hold an M.A. in Linguistics; but as far as I can ascertain, he has never published any work on this discipline in over 20 years since. There is no evidence we can find that he has ever done any work in linguistics since the late 70s whatsoever.

The scant information available suggests that Mr. Wall was preparing to become a field linguist, possibly in association with the Christian missionary-tied Summer Institute of Linguistics; these people quite literally get dropped in the middle of nowhere somewhere, where the natives speak some previously undescribed language, learn the language, write a grammar for it, and perform all sorts of projects for helping the survival of the local language and culture (and, most controversially, translate the Bible into the language to assist in the destruction of their native religion). Mr. Wall's plans were apparently derailed by health reasons. As such, the world of linguistics more likely than not suffered a great loss.

However, calling Mr. Wall a "linguist" is somewhat problematic. Certainly he does have a master's degree in Linguisitics, so it is not fraudulent. Still, one should call him by a title that actually reflects what he does do in real life. Mr. Larry Wall is a computer programmer, or more specifically, some sort of computer language "designer" and implementor (the quotes due to the natural misgivings at calling something like Pearl "designed").

Again, I say this not out of spite, not out of a desire to put down Mr. Wall, but rather out of a sense of loss at Mr. Wall's sad fate. Certainly the world would have benefited greatly if that fateful disease hadn't struck him and he'd managed to gift us with a grammar for one of Papua New Guinea's 800+ languages. Misfortune has it, however, that all we've gotten from him is bad prose, bad use of linguistics terms, and masses of unmaintainable line noise-looking spaghetti code written by incompetent programmers empowered by Mr. Wall to cause industry millions of dollars in losses from write-only code.

Next installment: debunking the Natural Language Principles in Pearl


Hang on...some errors (2.40 / 5) (#4)
by PotatoError on Mon Jun 3rd, 2002 at 07:15:46 AM PST
Link Errors:

"Silly Valley" points to anti san jose page.

"SRI" is a mislink. You should really check first.

"Larry Wall" points to a spoof site.

"Pearl" points to python page.

"Type Logical Grammer" points to some weird document which isn't about it.

"800+ languages" is a broken link. Unlike the others though, this one might not be your fault.



Spelling Errors:

"Pearl" is actually spelt Perl. I better not make a comment on this one!

"blundergrad" Not actually a word. But look here. HAHAHAHAH you better stop using that word or you are going to be SOOOO traceable.

.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

Such a bright young man, we have here! (none / 0) (#26)
by em on Mon Jun 3rd, 2002 at 08:25:37 PM PST
"blundergrad" Not actually a word.

"Not actually a word" is actually not a sentence.

But look here. HAHAHAHAH you better stop using that word or you are going to be SOOOO traceable.

Congratulations. You have just revealed a juicy bit of public information.
--em
Associate Editor, Adequacy.org


Maybe you should quit reading the 'Perl' books. (none / 0) (#43)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jun 5th, 2002 at 02:07:07 AM PST
They are ruining your vocabulary, reading all that cryptic stuff which shows the programmers lack of grammer and common sense.


 
obviously (none / 0) (#27)
by majubma on Mon Jun 3rd, 2002 at 09:42:49 PM PST
Obviously you haven't read this book. The actual name of the language is "Pearl." "Perl" is only used by the authors of the language because there was already another trademarked language called Pearl. It's kind of like how if you work at Xerox you're never allowed to say you're going to Xerox something--you have to say "photocopy on a Xerox brand photocopier," even though Xerox is common usage anyway.

-- All information wants to be free, especially information about what you do in the privacy of your own home.

 
How DARE you! (none / 0) (#63)
by gohomeandshoveit on Wed Jun 5th, 2002 at 09:38:56 AM PST
You sick demented freak! You ought to be taken out into a rat-infested wood and left to starve to death! How DARE you quote System of a Down and not attribute it to them! I now denounce you as a filthy plagiarist and smack you upside the head virtually.

Free thinkers are dangerous - System of a Down


 
On perl. (none / 0) (#5)
by because it isnt on Mon Jun 3rd, 2002 at 08:40:19 AM PST
Perl's greatest strength is that people who can't program very well can write something complex in five minutes.

Perl's greated weakness is that people who can't program very well can write something complex in five minutes.

If you're running a business which needs simple scripting for a website, you have to decide if you'll pay a premium salary for a true software engineer, and you'll wait long enough for the job to be done properly, or if you'll just slum it with a 'creative' type who's read a few books on UNIX and can knock up a script in five minutes.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

 
How Sad (none / 0) (#6)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jun 3rd, 2002 at 08:56:19 AM PST
Hey all you people that read this let it be know, Pearl is a great language, so is java, C/C++ and every other language that helps you people use your computers and software applications out there. You people have a bad idea of what a hacker is. Whom-ever posted this article should of thought to take some time and read up on what hackers are and what they do.

The person that wrote this article has a bad point on what hackers are, lol, I beat you even think video games are bad for us children.

Heres how it goes iam 16 i have been hacking for about 3 years and i have met some of the most smartest people with knowledge you cant even comprehend. You dont even know the start of programming its harder than you think. Just because you can understand or read it does no mean its stupid it means your to ignorant to find out how to work and use it.

For all you know anyone around you could be a hacker, by the way not all hackers are bad less than 20% of hackers are bad, most people you think are hackers are your technical support people your security people they all know how to do this stuff.

You all sickin me to think and use your propaganda against hackers and what they do. If i didnt know better you sound like a facist or communist to me. You aldults always have to be right.

Xero000


Your so right (5.00 / 3) (#9)
by zikzak on Mon Jun 3rd, 2002 at 10:17:47 AM PST
What you say is true because I am also 16 and I am very smarter than all my piers because I use computers. Hacking is not the media scapegoat they make to be because of White Hats and Flash isnt a hacking tool it is a cracking tool so get it right. We no this because we are smart hacking teens and we are smarter than are teachers because we hack and that makes us smart. We are not crinimals because we only brake laws we dont like like the DMCA because Echelon is a govermint plot to label White Hat hackers as a thret and we dont obay laws that are immoral. Information want's to be free so dont take away my Napster or I will find another way to take what I want without paying for it because record companys are a illegal monopoly like microsoft and I will keep stealing because I am an hacker and I am smart. You cant teach us nothing because we know smart people who teach us and I learn all I need to know by IRC so school isnt for hackers because we know computers and we dont need school to be smart because we are smarter than our teachers because we hack and that makes us smart. We are going to be ruling the world some day because we hack and on that day hackers will rule the world so look out because soon we will be ruling you as hackers who rule worlds by hacking. Monoply companys like mocirosoft and record companys and DMCA goverments with laws that arent good will go down because hackers will change them by hacking and using our hacking tools and then we will hack hack hack because we are smart and we hack with our open source linux we hack and are smart and are white hat and hack and not crack because we are smart and that makes os smart so we can smartly hack linux and open source and take down monopolies to hack and steal IP by hacking and be smart and rule the world and hack and hack and smartly take IP by hacking with our white hat hacker friends who are not crackers because they are bad and we are good because we hack not crack because we will change the world be ruling it with our smart hacking.


Echelon? (none / 0) (#13)
by detikon on Mon Jun 3rd, 2002 at 11:44:32 AM PST
Who cares. Wanna know about the biggest government anti-hacker-fiasco? Try Operation Sundevil. It was nothing more than a ploy to play on the stupidity of the average computer user along with the media and discredit hackers. Other than changing the perception with the average Joe it accomplished nothing. That's right no convictions.

Remeber all you crackers. No matter how much evidence they have the Federal government can't touch you.




Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

 
haw haw (none / 0) (#10)
by tkatchev on Mon Jun 3rd, 2002 at 10:30:09 AM PST
you suxorz


--
Peace and much love...




 
HACKER!!! HES A HACKER!!! (none / 0) (#12)
by PotatoError on Mon Jun 3rd, 2002 at 11:34:51 AM PST
CALL THE POLICE! HE ADMITTED IT! WE HAVE EVIDENCE NOW!!! YOU ARE GOING DOWN!!!!!!!!!!!!!



<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

:D (none / 0) (#14)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jun 3rd, 2002 at 11:46:14 AM PST
^^^^^^^
WWWWWAAAAYYYY too much coffee

Indy^_^


 
The police will laugh at you. (1.00 / 1) (#52)
by Virtual Mage on Wed Jun 5th, 2002 at 08:01:53 AM PST
You know, you really do not have much common sense. For one thing, the word "hacker" is a social term as well as a legal term. The social term refers to people who have an abnormally developed understanding of computers and technology. The legal term refers to someone who gains unuathorized access to a computer system. Now, he did not say which term he was using, and he did not say that he has broken into anything, so therefore, you can go right ahead and call the police. They will just laugh at you.


Social Term? (none / 0) (#85)
by gzt on Wed Jun 5th, 2002 at 03:10:03 PM PST
It seems intuitive to me that the 'social term' should refer to what society uses it to refer to. Common sense.

And no, just because you say it over and over doesn't make it so. Nice try, slick. We won't fall for your illegal terminology games.

Cheers,
GZ


I've never violated the law. (none / 0) (#91)
by Virtual Mage on Wed Jun 5th, 2002 at 06:31:06 PM PST
You know, in all the years I've been hacking, I have never violated the law in doing so. Every system I have broken into was one that I either owned or had permission to break into. Yet, I am still a hacker.


Swell, but I win. (none / 0) (#92)
by gzt on Wed Jun 5th, 2002 at 06:58:36 PM PST
That's just peachy keen, your not having broken the law.

But the point remains, the social term 'hacker' does not "[refer] to people who have an abnormally developed understanding of computers and technology." You can't arbitrarily invent meanings for words and expect others to adhere to your private usage.


 
Everybody violated the law. (none / 0) (#93)
by The Mad Scientist on Wed Jun 5th, 2002 at 07:31:50 PM PST
There is just way too many petty laws and regulations for any mortal to be able to go on with their day by day life without ever violating one of them.

Don't forget also about the notorious elasticity of laws, allowing to get you entangled in a legal mess even if you think you are entirely innocent.

Another great feature of legal system, when facing a wealthy adversary, is the ability to use the justice as an offensive weapon - a going-to-lose lawsuit is launched at you, then prolonged until you are drained out of your financial resources and have to give up.

Just ignore the laws and use the common sense. It worked for me for at least a decade. (Besides, why I should let anyone with less knowledge about any given sci/tech field than me to tell me what I can or can't do on that field.) And don't forget to maintain anonymity when you are about to step on some corporate toe, especially when publishing.


 
How to sound like an ignorant teenaged twit. (none / 0) (#33)
by astrix on Tue Jun 4th, 2002 at 08:10:51 AM PST
First: Fill your posts with as many run-on sentences as you can muster. Everyone will think you're real cool and smart when they see how much nonsense you can squish into one sentence.

Heres how it goes iam 16 i have been hacking for about 3 years and i have met some of the most smartest people with knowledge you cant even comprehend.

Second: Brag about how you know 'some of the most smartest people'. Everyone will think you're real cool and smart when they think you know other smarties.

Third: Quote statistics you have absolutely no intentions of giving references for.

For all you know anyone around you could be a hacker, by the way not all hackers are bad less than 20% of hackers are bad, most people you think are hackers are your technical support people your security people they all know how to do this stuff.

Fourth: Threaten to commit suicide because your girlfriend dumped your pimply ass and "nobody understands".


"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty" --Thomas Jefferson

Fourth? (none / 0) (#120)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jun 11th, 2002 at 01:10:56 AM PST
Damn, I always forget the fourth step.


 
How Sad (none / 0) (#66)
by gohomeandshoveit on Wed Jun 5th, 2002 at 10:25:26 AM PST
This arrogant teenaged loser who has nothing else better to do but hack computers is obviously trying to write in some language that does not have any rules for grammar and spelling. Here's a tip: if you want to be one of the "most smartest" people that you meet, try going back to school, preferably 3rd grade, and actually paying attention this time. And yes, although we adults don't always have to be right, we happen to be right all the time anyways. Go cry to your mother.

Free thinkers are dangerous - System of a Down


This arrogant teenaged loser... (none / 0) (#94)
by The Mad Scientist on Wed Jun 5th, 2002 at 07:54:58 PM PST
...who has nothing else better to do but hack computers is quite possibly the obscenely-high-paid computer security consultant you will have to hire couple years later.

And yes, although we adults don't always have to be right, we happen to be right all the time anyways.

Couple years back, I managed many times to get the adults (usually the teachers) to the corner. The ones that admitted they were wrong were the ones that earned my respect (and with whom I usually had a lot of sci/tech discussions later). The only one that failed to do so was the same one because of whom I almost hadn't finished my high school. (The other teachers talked us both to a ceasefire, which technically lasts even now - the war was never formally called off. But it was magnificent - he was stupid as a brick and attempted to compensate the lack of intelligence with forcing his authority, usually by yelling, and it was so easy to make him run into his own words each couple minutes that it almost wasn't funny. An argument aikido of sort.)


 
OH NO! (none / 0) (#7)
by because it isnt on Mon Jun 3rd, 2002 at 08:57:34 AM PST
An exceptional level of incompetance has been reached today by Adequacy -- their brand-spanking new topic icon for the "Pearl" (oh ho ho ho ho! a ha ha ha ha! ee hee hee hee hee!) programming language for some reason actually has the word "Perl" in it. Shock horror! That's not "satirical"!

So, who's getting the concrete shoes treatment over this one?

In other news, "Lunix" (oh ho ho ho ho! stop! my sides! my sides! uaaarrgh!) Zealot accidentally called Linux Zealot
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

More satire? (none / 0) (#8)
by iat on Mon Jun 3rd, 2002 at 10:06:28 AM PST
Can you explain the joke behind spelling "incompetence" like that? I suspect that you've spelt it in that way as a witty Golden Jubilee satire, intended to mock the cruel injustice of the British monarchy. Nevertheless, your intelligent and sophisticated sense of humour has bamboozled me, and I request that you explain your intentional spelling error to me in simple words. Thanks.

P.S. The "Perl" topic icon is very old, Zikzak made it when Adequacy was still being beta tested.


Adequacy.org - love it or leave it.

To paraphrase Shakespeare, (none / 0) (#11)
by because it isnt on Mon Jun 3rd, 2002 at 11:02:05 AM PST
"sometimes a spelling mistake is just a spelling mistake".

Be thankful you didn't spot "greated".
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

Wasn't That Freud? n/t (none / 0) (#24)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jun 3rd, 2002 at 05:22:25 PM PST



No. (none / 0) (#29)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jun 4th, 2002 at 01:58:08 AM PST
Or are you too poorly educated to be aware of a rose by any other name?


 
Question concerning the topic icon? (none / 0) (#16)
by Narcissus on Mon Jun 3rd, 2002 at 01:42:38 PM PST
what is the regular expression trying to stamp a pattern out for??? or is it just some idiots quick punchings of his keyboard while holding the shift key?
I'm a little rusty on regexes so if I can get a little help I'd appreciate it.




--------------------------------
Ok, who picked the flower???

it's an overly complicated regex for... (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by derek3000 on Mon Jun 3rd, 2002 at 02:06:01 PM PST
s /hacker/pimply-faced adolescent felon/


----------------
"Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

Thank you (none / 0) (#20)
by Narcissus on Mon Jun 3rd, 2002 at 03:03:07 PM PST
that's basically what I thought.




--------------------------------
Ok, who picked the flower???

 
I tried running the icon.... (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by gordonjcp on Mon Jun 3rd, 2002 at 04:47:47 PM PST
... it's Pong.


 
Minors on Adequacy (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by stet on Mon Jun 3rd, 2002 at 01:06:23 PM PST
You know, I can't help but notice the number of sixteen-year-old h4x0r types running around what is clearly labeled "news for grown-ups". This obviously cannot be allowed to continue. Now, while attempting to research solutions at my local library, I was stymied by filtering software. However, I have heard rumors of an effective technique for preventing underage persons from visiting inappropriate websites. This technique consists of a short disclaimer that explains why the site is unsuitable for minors, followed by two links, one of which points to the main site, and one that points to a more suitable site labeled "exit. For adequacy, I suggest the following:

Controversial opinions, passionately held. We Are Adequacy.org.

Adequacy.org is frankly unlikely to become a part of the Open Source Developers Network any time soon.


To enter click here.

To exit to a more appropriate site, click here.


Interesting .... (none / 0) (#17)
by Narcissus on Mon Jun 3rd, 2002 at 01:56:46 PM PST
Why, in this comment of yours, do you bash slashdot; but yet, your user info homepage is listed as slashdot?

HYPOCRITE maybe?




--------------------------------
Ok, who picked the flower???

Not really.... (none / 0) (#21)
by stet on Mon Jun 3rd, 2002 at 03:05:12 PM PST
Why, in this comment of yours, do you bash slashdot; but yet, your user info homepage is listed as slashdot? HYPOCRITE maybe?

Nothing so grandiose, I just thought it'd be funny. The only reason I got an account was to post my first comment and my communist, open-source (I repeat myself, I know) browser choked on anonymous reader.

Heh.


Um, yeah (none / 0) (#31)
by Virtual Mage on Tue Jun 4th, 2002 at 04:40:22 AM PST
You know, if you are havning trouble with an open source program, why not just post something about your problem somewhere like slashdot, neworder.box.sk, or linux.org? I use Konqueror quite frequently, and it's never given me a problem.


Are you joking ? (none / 0) (#32)
by dmg on Tue Jun 4th, 2002 at 06:28:09 AM PST
You know, if you are havning trouble with an open source program, why not just post something about your problem somewhere like slashdot, neworder.box.sk, or linux.org?

Post to any of these sites and you will have hoardes of 14-year olds berating you for your "lameness", and telling you that you are a "moron" because you forgot to install glibc version 3.3.3.4.23.2.3pl3.2 and all its dependencies.

So you will go away and install it, only to find that your system will no longer boot. And all this trouble just to get a working web browser, something which comes for free with Windows ME and works straight out of the box

And anyway, why should we report bugs in Open Source programs ? If we do, its like we are working for Redhat for free. What's in it for me ?

time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration.
-- MC Hawking

You don't know what you're talking about. (none / 0) (#51)
by Virtual Mage on Wed Jun 5th, 2002 at 07:55:05 AM PST
You know, it's no blantly obvious that you don't know anything about open source or Linux. For one thing, Linux and almost all OSS checks to see if you have all the files you need during the installation process. If you don't, it tells you that you need to get them and were to get them at. If you are posting on forums and getting flamed because there is a bug in your program, then you're not posting in the right places.


Whatever, hacker. (none / 0) (#60)
by dmg on Wed Jun 5th, 2002 at 08:56:54 AM PST
If you are posting on forums and getting flamed because there is a bug in your program, then you're not posting in the right places.

comp.os.linux ? I would have thought that was an appropriate place to post a question abou Linux. Anyway, I know enough about Linux to have ditched it in favor of BeOS. (You probably haven't heard of it, its an OS for people who don't hack and just want to get some work done).

time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration.
-- MC Hawking

Really now? (5.00 / 1) (#64)
by detikon on Wed Jun 5th, 2002 at 09:57:04 AM PST
Apparently you really don't know shit about BeOS. Be Inc supported outside and open source development. It even supported porting various programs and modules over to BeOS. These included everything from other OSes including Linux. Hell they even supported porting various compiles and programs such as Apache to transform the single user multimedia desktop OS into a server OS.

BeOS also included many tools anyone familiar with bash could use. Yes BeOS had terminal. Of course I didn't expect an MCSE to know shit about BeOS.

I suggest that you don't allow elenchos to get wind of you using a non-MS OS and software.




Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

BeOS was great but.... (none / 0) (#65)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jun 5th, 2002 at 10:08:00 AM PST
Unfortunately, by first hand accounts, the majority of it's user and developer base outside of Be Inc. seem to have the "Can't fix it your self, well you're screwed then" attitude, which kept it's needed driver support incredibly low, and there were barely any open source programs for Be worth any use


 
Why so jealous of the MCSE ? (none / 0) (#68)
by dmg on Wed Jun 5th, 2002 at 10:33:14 AM PST
Of course I didn't expect an MCSE to know shit about BeOS.

Why not ? MCSEs are very into computers. I would expect them to know about Unix, BeOS, MacOS X etc. Why wouldn't we ?

If BeOS used open source code, how come the kernel is rock-solid stable, and the filesystem so quick. How come everything works out of the box ? In fact you are lying. Most of the BeOS is closed source. From the MetroWerks CodeWarrior development environment, to the GoBe Productive office suite, to the Opera web browser, to well just about every other component of the OS.

BeOS makes Linux look like the steaming pile of horseshit that it is. And don't take my word for it either, the admins at the major US investment bank I worked for insist on OpenBSD or Solaris if they are to run Unix on an IA32 architecture (which is, at best, a misguided thing to do).

Also, what is your problem with the MCSE ? It is just a qualification after all. It does not cancel out my Masters degree in Distributed Computing does it ? It does not force me to only use Microsoft products. All it does do is get me an extremely well paid job at a top US investment bank. What's not to like ?

Or perhaps you tried and MCSE exam and failed ? Is that it ?

time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration.
-- MC Hawking

three things (none / 0) (#70)
by Virtual Mage on Wed Jun 5th, 2002 at 10:46:30 AM PST
1) I have BeOS on one of my computers.

2) BeOS is a hybrid OS. It is based on the same things that Linux is based on.

3) The MCSE teaches that MS is superior, when in actuality, Novell and Linux are much more productive and secure than Windows, that is when the person setting them up knows what they are doing. (Yes, I realize that Windows 2000 can be just as secure as Linux. I have Windows 2000 Server.) Oh, and before you even start, I own and have read the books for the MCSE course.




I am going to have to call you on your Bullshit. (5.00 / 1) (#76)
by dmg on Wed Jun 5th, 2002 at 11:08:56 AM PST
1) Good for you. You are not a totally lost case

2) Bullshit. BeOS is NOT based on the same things as Linux. You simply do not know what you are talking about. BeOS was written from SCRATCH in C++. Linux is written in C, and is based on Liynius Torvolte's minix-like kernel.

3) Bullshit again. The MCSE teaches nothing of the sort. It simply teaches the best way to configure Microsoft solutions. By definition this will not focus on Novell or Unix.

There is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that "Novell and Linux are much more productive and secure than Windows" Indeed, if this were the case, most businesses, being CAPITALIST would go this route. Businesses do not make technology decisions without looking at the TCO, despite what you might think.

Open your eyes. Look beyond the hype. Linux is a second-rate OS for most business purposes. It is insecure (since it is not audited like OpenBSD). It is based on an ancient idea (the monolithic kernal). There are hundreds of versions all requiring specialist knowledge. Don't get me wrong, Linux is a great hobbyist toy and you could learn quite a bit from studying it. It just is not ready for prime time, and never will be.

time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration.
-- MC Hawking

 
you'd expect that? (none / 0) (#87)
by detikon on Wed Jun 5th, 2002 at 04:06:06 PM PST
Then why does the MCSE course material only cover setting up Windows client for use with Unix/Novell servers (very vaguely maybe something about SMB). You certainly don't find anything in regards to BeOS. A Net+ certification is more likely to provide you with more knowledge.

BeOS is not based on open source. However, its creators provided a whole lot more than other companies *cough*Microsoft*cough* about software development for BeOS. However, they didn't provide a whole lot in the way of the end-user [ie drivers] which according to their marketing was the core audience the whole time. BeOS was closed source. However, Be Inc encouraged developers to develop software whether open source or closed source.

BeOS doesn't work directly out of the box. It's a multimedia OS that didn't work with many video cards and sound cards. Good luck getting it to work with a majority of winmodems. If you wanted even a basic driver [even way before Be Inc was swallowed by Palm] you had to rely on open source drives from sources like BeBits.com

Please find me a version of Solaris for the Intel Intanium.

Novell own 95% of the market share in the 90s. It was their lack of marketing and Microsoft hype that hurt Novell. Businesses do make decisions without looking at the TCO. Not all decisions are made by the guys in IT. Most of the time it's the jackoofs in suits thinking they are saving the company BILLIONS and watching too many MS ads. TCO reports really don't determine a lot because most companies don't bother with them. They are a pain to put together and in many cases are innacurate.

http://newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=02/05/30/2119253&mode=thread&tid=3

As for your final thoughts, apparently you haven't been paying attention to things like the Linux Standard Base and UnitedLinux. Also the MCSE is NOT a qualification. It's a certfication. An instructor told me once that certification doesn't mean you know how to apply the material. It simply means you're a good test taker. Seeing as how MSnetwork administration certifications aren't vital my job I just got them shits and giggles. That's right I have my MCSE as well as my MCP.




Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

 
An excellent article, (none / 0) (#19)
by majubma on Mon Jun 3rd, 2002 at 03:00:28 PM PST
demonstrating the confusion that results when theoretical disciplines redefine commonplace words such as "language" and "grammar" to mean completely different things. (To computer scientists, "language" means, for some reason, "a set of strings," and "grammar" means, even more bizarrely, "nondeterministic pushdown automaton.")

I look forward to your forthcoming point-by-point rebuttal of Mr. Wall, as well as four other installments in your series.

-- All information wants to be free, especially information about what you do in the privacy of your own home.

Not quite (none / 0) (#106)
by Q on Thu Jun 6th, 2002 at 12:32:20 PM PST
Grammar (Context-Free Grammar) is a language that can be represented by a push-down automata. "Non-deterministic" is unnecessary, too.


Yes, quite. (none / 0) (#111)
by majubma on Thu Jun 6th, 2002 at 06:00:48 PM PST
Context-free grammars are eqivalent to nondeterministic pushdown automata. That is to say every context-free grammer can be represented as an NPA, and every NPA can be represented as a CFG. Further, there exist CFGs which cannot be parsed by any deterministic pushdown automaton[1], so the "non-deterministic" is necessary.

[1] Lewis, H.R. and C.H. Papadimitriou. Elements of the theory of computation. New Jersey:Prentice Hall. 1981.

-- All information wants to be free, especially information about what you do in the privacy of your own home.

My mistake (none / 0) (#113)
by Q on Fri Jun 7th, 2002 at 08:19:53 AM PST
I confused DFA-NFA equivalence with PDA-NPA (non-)equivalence. It has been a long time...

Well, I hope you are happier now.


 
Wrong (5.00 / 1) (#112)
by em on Thu Jun 6th, 2002 at 10:13:33 PM PST
An excellent article, demonstrating the confusion that results when theoretical disciplines redefine commonplace words such as "language" and "grammar" to mean completely different things. (To computer scientists, "language" means, for some reason, "a set of strings," and "grammar" means, even more bizarrely, "nondeterministic pushdown automaton.")

But the computer scientists took the definitions of "language" and "grammar" from Chomsky!

And, "grammar" doesn't mean "nondeterministic pushdown automaton" at all. A grammar, in the classic definition, is a set of production rules; this is a different kind of object from the automaton that accepts the language generated by the grammar in question. (There are things that are not production systems that people label "grammars" too, like e.g. categorial grammars.)
--em
Associate Editor, Adequacy.org


Right (none / 0) (#125)
by majubma on Sat Jun 15th, 2002 at 05:58:41 PM PST
I wasn't saying that linguists and computer scientists meant different things by "language," rather that the theoretical definition is a different beast from the lay definition that was already in place (and which Mr. Wall seems to be using.) Arguments assuming that a language is a set of strings won't do a lot of good when the opponent is assuming a language is a means of communication by speech or writing.

Context-free grammars are completely equivalent to pushdown automata, and the translation from one form to the other is trivial. Thus some consider it rather burdensome to maintain a great distinction between them, and you often see papers using the same symbol for both forms.

-- All information wants to be free, especially information about what you do in the privacy of your own home.

 
bravo! (none / 0) (#25)
by faustus on Mon Jun 3rd, 2002 at 07:17:50 PM PST
I was overjoyed when reading this part of your informative article:

...translate the Bible into the language to assist in the destruction of their native religion

Being a Christian who always goes to Church, unless NASCAR or Football is on, I always chuckle at the silly beliefs of native populations and realize how my religion is so much more superior. Savages, as my grandpa called them, believe in crazy "magic" where there is more than one God!!! HAHAHHAH how crazy and silly!! There of course is only one true God, who you go to Heaven to meet when you die, but that's only if your are good -- otherwise you go to a pit of fire ruled by a half-man half-horse with horns on his head!!! Those silly natives, translating the Bible for them to learn the truth can only be good for them!!


--You seem to be suffering from a liberal-arts education.

Ignorant people (1.00 / 1) (#54)
by Virtual Mage on Wed Jun 5th, 2002 at 08:12:34 AM PST
I swear, some of you people are just plain ignorant.

1) The religions of Mesopotamia and Sumer drastically out date Christianity, as do the native american, african, and norse religions.

2) Satan is never described as looking like that within the Bible. That images originates from two places. The Celts worshipped a good called Cernunnos, which had antlers. The church spread the propaganda that Cernunnos was Satan, so people started to think Satan had horns. Meanwhile, during the crusades, the church saw that one of the gods worshipped by the arabs they were fighting also had horns. The idea of Satan being half human/half goat comes eintirely from propaganda generated in the Middle Ages to discredit religions other than Christianity.

3) In the old testament, in Hebrew, god is referred to by three names , Adonai, Elohim, and YHVH. Adonai means "the lord (roughly)" and is a male name. Elohim is a female name. Meanwhile, YHVH represents a combination of both, a perfect combination of all. Meaning that god is both male and female.


Where did you get your Education from ? (5.00 / 1) (#59)
by dmg on Wed Jun 5th, 2002 at 08:54:00 AM PST
An AD&D manual ?

time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration.
-- MC Hawking

here (none / 0) (#71)
by Virtual Mage on Wed Jun 5th, 2002 at 10:48:14 AM PST
Try encyclopedias and history books.


pfah (none / 0) (#77)
by nathan on Wed Jun 5th, 2002 at 11:42:29 AM PST
Your speculations about the meanings behind the OT names for God are hardly authoritative.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

 
Your title (none / 0) (#89)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jun 5th, 2002 at 04:20:30 PM PST
Hehe, I read your title and thought you were about to say that you got your education from here. I was about to congratulate you heartily.


 
close (none / 0) (#81)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jun 5th, 2002 at 12:44:40 PM PST
Elohim isn't a female name. It's the female plural form of a male name, or the male plural form of a female name. Can't recall which now, and not at home, so can get the books. Elohim means the Gods, not the Godess.

-monk
(made an account, but it doesn't like the password I was emailed!)


 
Moron. (none / 0) (#97)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jun 6th, 2002 at 12:04:19 AM PST
Sarcasm's lost on you, isn't it?


 
Eh? (none / 0) (#105)
by Q on Thu Jun 6th, 2002 at 12:26:01 PM PST
In the old testament, in Hebrew, god is referred to by three names , Adonai, Elohim, and YHVH. Adonai means "the lord (roughly)" and is a male name. Elohim is a female name. Meanwhile, YHVH represents a combination of both, a perfect combination of all. Meaning that god is both male and female.

Fucken WHAT?!

Adonai means "my masters", Elohim means "gods" - and is a plural-only form, and "Yahweh", aka tetragrammaton is another word for god, which Jews are not allowed to pronounce, and say "adonai" instead.

No word is combination of others, and different names for god are believed to come from different scriptures which Torah combines.


 
It's worse than you think (none / 0) (#28)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jun 3rd, 2002 at 10:05:09 PM PST
Perl is a language designed to appeal to "hackers", "script kiddies", and other antisocial types. to-wit:

  • Perl is a "high-level" language. This means that the language is difficult to read because it is supposed to be usd only by the "311337".

  • Perl is notorious for its wide range of available "modules" which are used by hackers to code internet worms and security exploits quickly and easily. Some examples: "File::Find (used for intellectual property theft); "sigtrap" (used for disguising a destructive email worm as a harmless .sig file) and "Math::Complex" (used for illegal large-key encryption).

  • Perl hackers often engage in "obfuscated code" contests like Perlgolf. Hackers use these contests to practice writing unreadable code, the better to hide their plotting from the forces of law and order.

    In short, the destructive and user-unfreindly language Perl represents a betrayal of everything the personal computer revolution was about. Responsible citizens should use only socially redeeming programming languages like C# or Visual Basic.


  • Yet more of this site's ignorance (none / 0) (#55)
    by Virtual Mage on Wed Jun 5th, 2002 at 08:35:57 AM PST
    The designation of perl being a "high level" langauge has noithing to do with the intellect of the people who are supposed to use it. The concept of high and low languages is based on how much direct control the language has over the actual hardware of the computer, and how much like human language it is. An example of a low level language is assembly. Assembly is the language which has the most direct control over the system. However, it doesn't even resemble English. Here's an example of assembly (this is the first few lines of a program):
    4D   DEC   BP
    5A   POP   DX
    0002   ADD   BYTE PTR [EDX],AL
    0000   ADD   BYTE PTR [EAX],AL
    0004   ADD   BYTE PTR [ESP],AL
    00FF   ADD   BH,BH
    FF00   INC   WORD PTR [EAX]

    That's not english at all. In order to understand what that code does, you absolutely have to know how to progarm assembly.

    A high level language is one that is more like Ihuman language, but often has less direct control over the hardware of your computer. A perfect example of a high level language is HTML. HTML has no way of controlling the hardware on your computer, and is relatively easy to learn, because it doesn't look as much like grek as assembly language does.

    A middle language is one that sits somewhere between these two extremes. Good examples of this are C and Fortran. Both are able to make calls to the hardware, but are limited by various contstraints (I'm sure no one here wants to here me rant about memory adresses and what not). However, they are a lot more like human language than assembly is.

    As for perl being used by hackers to make worms, and encryption crackers, and what not, that comment is absurd. Yes, it is possible to do those things with perl. It's also possible with JAVA, C/C++/C#, Python, assembly, fortran, J, ruby, and just about any other programming language. Saying perl is meant to be used just by hackers is like saying cars are made just for people who race. Yes, there are hackers who use perl. Yes, there are people who race with their cars. Neither of these groups is a majority.

    Oh, and as far as File::Find and Math::Complex go, they are totally legitimate modules for perl. File::Find is used to making programs that have functions similar to the Search think in the start menu of windows and the Math::Complex is used for doing mathematical functions other than just plain addding and subtracting, such as calculus or geometry. I can;t say anything about the sigtrap module, as I have never used it. I have however used both File::Find and Math::Complex before. I used the File::Find to make a seach command that monitors my computer for newly created files and notfies me when file are created, much like program such as Trip Wire do. I used Math::Complex to make a calculator.




    Get your facts straight. (none / 0) (#58)
    by dmg on Wed Jun 5th, 2002 at 08:52:17 AM PST
    A perfect example of a high level language is HTML

    Bzzzzt. Wrong. You Lose. HTML is a MARKUP language, (hence the "M" in HTML). It is impossible to write a program in HTML.

    time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration.
    -- MC Hawking

    True IF... (none / 0) (#61)
    by budlite on Wed Jun 5th, 2002 at 09:08:29 AM PST
    ...you ignore for a moment that you can embed scripts in HTML pages.

    Taking into account the fact that you can embed scripts in HTML pages, the distinction between HTML being an HLL or simply a markup language becomes a little more blurred. For example, you could treat an HTML page containing scripts to be a single program, where the actual program code is contained in the scripts and the HTML page is viewed as a user interface definition file.


    No (none / 0) (#75)
    by aoc on Wed Jun 5th, 2002 at 11:05:46 AM PST
    You do not need to ignore embedded scripts, and there is no blurring of the distinction between a markup language like HTML and the programming language used in an embedded script.


    You can embed video in HTML. Does that make HTML a movie? Of course not. It just means you have a multi-type document. In no way does it alter what HTML is.


     
    yes it is (none / 0) (#73)
    by Virtual Mage on Wed Jun 5th, 2002 at 10:55:21 AM PST
    The definition of a programming language is any set of commands, which can be designated to execute in order, by a computer or computer component.

    Criteria for a programming langauge:

    1) Must have it's own syntax
    Yes, html has this.
    2) Must be readable by a compiler or interpretor program
    That's what a web browser does.

    Therefore HTML is a programming language, albiet a very limited one. If you would prefer a different example of a high level language, Python?


    uebertroll (none / 0) (#80)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jun 5th, 2002 at 12:39:02 PM PST
    Heh. Nope, HTML isn't a programming language. It does have syntax, and it can be read by a machine. However, a browser doesn't execute tags. It uses them as a basis for how to display something, how to markup a canvas. Having syntax makes it a language, which it is- but it's a markup language, not a programming language.

    A programming language has to be able to program a computer, be it a real one or a theoretical one. HTML does neither.

    -monk
    (made an account, but it doesn't like the password I was emailed!)


     
    High-level language (none / 0) (#96)
    by The Mad Scientist on Wed Jun 5th, 2002 at 08:19:01 PM PST
    LISP.

    Because God wrote in LISP code.


    Crap (none / 0) (#98)
    by walwyn on Thu Jun 6th, 2002 at 04:15:39 AM PST
    The high level languages are things like UML, VDM, etc. Anything else is just low level coding carried out by basement types.

    In this context Pearl is a particularly low-level language for sysadmins and webmonkeys.


    Perl is high level (none / 0) (#99)
    by Virtual Mage on Thu Jun 6th, 2002 at 08:34:34 AM PST
    How can perl be a low-level language if it can't make direct calls to the hardware?


    Eh! (nt) (none / 0) (#100)
    by walwyn on Thu Jun 6th, 2002 at 09:05:38 AM PST



    Proove it (none / 0) (#102)
    by Virtual Mage on Thu Jun 6th, 2002 at 10:35:16 AM PST
    If you can proove that it's a low level language, then by all means post a link to the site you get your info from.


    Eh! (none / 0) (#103)
    by walwyn on Thu Jun 6th, 2002 at 10:40:21 AM PST
    Just what part of "In this context" don't you understand?


    you still haven't prooven anything (none / 0) (#104)
    by Virtual Mage on Thu Jun 6th, 2002 at 11:42:45 AM PST
    You still aren't prooving anything. True, VDM and UML are considered high level languages, so is perl. I think what we have in your case is someone who doesn't know anything about programming trying to explain programming.


    Oh come off it! (2.00 / 1) (#107)
    by derek3000 on Thu Jun 6th, 2002 at 12:50:13 PM PST
    You wouldn't use perl to outline a project in terms that didn't reference implementation. Unless you were attempting to use g**k humor.

    Compared to UML and its ilk, everything is low-level. That's the context he was talking about.

    If you have trouble understanding this, just let me know and I can re-write with overly-complicated technical terms. Or in machine language, if you prefer.

    Now please shut up NAWL!


    ----------------
    "Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

     
    Neither have you, Skippy. (none / 0) (#108)
    by RobotSlave on Thu Jun 6th, 2002 at 01:19:32 PM PST
    The notion that some sort of imagined proximity to hardware determines whether or not a language is "low level" leads inevitably to its own unravelling.

    This sort of thinking tells us that Assembly language can not possibly be low-level, because it is too abstract. True low-level prgramming in this conception involves direct physical manipulation of hardware-- toggling of switches, punching of cards, and the like.

    Under this "hardware proximity" model, true "low level" programming is indistinguishable from the construction and maintenance of single-purpose machines. Any use of something so abstract as a "programming language" would constitute higher-level programming. Therefore, if we let hardware be our guide, we find that "low level language" is an oxymoron, and we must conclude that all programming languages are "high level" by definition.

    You may not like Walwyn's definition of a "low level language," but it is at least logically consistent.


    © 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

     
    Eh! (none / 0) (#109)
    by walwyn on Thu Jun 6th, 2002 at 01:55:35 PM PST
    Even assembler is high level by your definition as it is interpreted by the processors microcode.

    A high level language is not one that doesn't allow you to peek and poke. It is one that allows you to describe the system, unambiguously, either mathematically or graphically, in domain terms.

    It should also be sufficently expressive that the system described is capable of being realized by some low level implementation language; ideally generated automatically from the high level language description, but mostly handed over to some scripting/coding monkey to fuck up.

    Perl is typical of a low level language in that it merely describes some implementation, which is probably wrong, not the intent nor design.


    You should be slapped. (none / 0) (#114)
    by tkatchev on Fri Jun 7th, 2002 at 11:22:11 AM PST
    Anybody who mentions the words "programming" and "mathematically" in one sentence should be forced to solve nonlinear differential equations in infinite-dimensional Banach spaces at gunpoint.

    Math is the tool of the devil. I am dead serious.


    --
    Peace and much love...




    It is only you... (4.00 / 1) (#115)
    by walwyn on Fri Jun 7th, 2002 at 02:46:36 PM PST
    ...that have mentioned them both in a single sentence.

    Personally I have a bunch of Cambridge PhD's to call upon when I want equations solved. YSurely you didn't think I'd sully my hands with such mundane matters myself?


    I certainly hope so. (none / 0) (#116)
    by tkatchev on Sat Jun 8th, 2002 at 12:37:01 AM PST
    Math is a serious psychosexual disorder.


    --
    Peace and much love...




    Can I... (none / 0) (#117)
    by hauntedattics on Mon Jun 10th, 2002 at 09:57:42 AM PST
    quote you on that next time some idiot geek gets on my case for never having taken calculus?



     
    A sure sign of stupidity (none / 0) (#84)
    by walwyn on Wed Jun 5th, 2002 at 01:27:22 PM PST
    I get CV's from people claiming HTML as a programming language. I need read them no further - bin.


     
    OK nitwit (none / 0) (#67)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jun 5th, 2002 at 10:32:41 AM PST
    Perl is a "high-level" language. This means that the language is difficult to read because it is supposed to be usd only by the "311337".

    And so is every other computer language other than machine code or assembler, including C# and Visual Basic. high level referes to how you actually write your code, high level uses phraseology (kina-ish), low level uses direct system calls (can the real programmers explain it properly, without any flames)

    Perl is notorious for its wide range of available "modules" which are used by hackers to code internet worms and security exploits quickly and easily. Some examples: "File::Find (used for intellectual property theft); "sigtrap" (used for disguising a destructive email worm as a harmless .sig file)

    And also your nice amazon.com search and buy engines

    and "Math::Complex" (used for illegal large-key encryption).

    sorry not illegal. what do you think secure websites use?

    Perl hackers often engage in "obfuscated code" contests like Perlgolf. Hackers use these contests to practice writing unreadable code, the better to hide their plotting from the forces of law and order.

    or to make your DVD playback smoother on a slower computer, make you ebay transactions process more quickly and securly, etc.


     
    Um, what is your point? (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Virtual Mage on Tue Jun 4th, 2002 at 04:36:06 AM PST
    You know, it's just someone's opinion that perl (that is the right way to spell it) is like a natural language. I actually agree with you, I don't see how in the world it resembles any written language. The point is, why does it matter if it doesn't? I doubt many of the people who frequent this page program in perl or are planning on programming in perl, so your articel isn't serving to do anything except maybe to try to piss off the people who do use perl.


    actually. (none / 0) (#34)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jun 4th, 2002 at 10:40:59 AM PST
    There are many computer professionals who visit this site, and there are also plenty of people who (chew on THIS) do something completely different for a living, but still know a thing or two about computers.

    Just because you don't sacrifice your life to an idol of Linus Torvalds doesn't mean you can't be interested in computing.

    Furthermore, this article is aimed not at those who know perl, because they're likely to be antisocial freaks like you, but at the people who have heard a bit about perl, and may have even heard lies such as "perl is based on natural language," and "Larry Wall is a linguist."


     
    PEARL (none / 0) (#35)
    by 91degrees on Tue Jun 4th, 2002 at 10:50:21 AM PST
    Practical Extraction And Report Language.


    PERL (none / 0) (#36)
    by Narcissus on Tue Jun 4th, 2002 at 12:22:25 PM PST
    the creator Larry Wall supports Pathologically Eclectic Rubbish Lister he also supports the version you furnished us but not with the "And" and I think the creator has more right to tell us how it is spelled, don't you.




    --------------------------------
    Ok, who picked the flower???

    PEARL (none / 0) (#37)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jun 4th, 2002 at 02:25:44 PM PST
    Pathologically Eclectic, Archaic Rubbish Lister

    The Archaic emphathizes PEARL's heritage from shell scripting and C.

    As to the creator having more or less of a right to tell us anything, I thought PEARL was Open Source!


    CREATOR vs. USER (none / 0) (#38)
    by Narcissus on Tue Jun 4th, 2002 at 03:44:38 PM PST
    according to the GNU General Public License the creator still has all authoring copyright rights. Therefore Mr. Wall still owns the rights to PERL even though he chose to have it redistributed freely under the terms of the GPL.

    Damn I really wish people would argue about shit they know and not what they are obviously ill-equipped to handle.




    --------------------------------
    Ok, who picked the flower???

    Oh, boy! (none / 0) (#39)
    by RobotSlave on Tue Jun 4th, 2002 at 03:59:23 PM PST
    Ooh, look, everyone! Another legal wunderkind! I'll bet he's read the whole GNU GPL, all the way through!

    For the benefit of the court, Narcissus, could you show us where the the GPL expressly prohibits the redistribution of a covered work under a new, alternate, or modified name?

    No need to quote the passage. Just cite the relevant paragraph, and we can go from there.


    © 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

    Damn you guys are ignorant (none / 0) (#41)
    by Narcissus on Tue Jun 4th, 2002 at 10:05:25 PM PST
    Do you people not read the prior posts to which others comment before you make some kind of rebuttal.

    My point in commenting was not to say it couldn't be refered under a different name but that it was called PERL by the one who birthed it which under the GPL entitles him to make the name of it and that this name is the proper spelling for it.

    Any butchering of this name could be seen as a totally different licensed product since this license was only entitled to PERLs current versions.




    --------------------------------
    Ok, who picked the flower???

    Oh, yes. So very ignorant. You are. (none / 0) (#45)
    by RobotSlave on Wed Jun 5th, 2002 at 02:58:34 AM PST
    Dear young Atticus:

    If you would be so kind as to cite the relevent section and paragraph of the GPL which "entitles" the person who "birthed" a covered work to "make the name of it and that this name is the proper spelling for it," then we can move along with this little debate.

    If, however, you can't find any part of the GPL that grants the right you've attributed to it, then I'm afraid you're going to have to shut the fuck up.

    Now then. Will you please cite the section and paragraph of the GPL (and relevant copyright statuate) that grants the right of unique and exclusive naming that you are advancing?

    Put up or shut up, young Atticus.


    © 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

    Did you actually read the license? (none / 0) (#53)
    by detikon on Wed Jun 5th, 2002 at 08:07:36 AM PST
    The works are copyrighted by the orginal author. Any works based on the authors work must carry a notice such as "based on Perl". Even verbatim copies must carry the disclaimer. Therefore Pearl would simply be a deritive work based on Perl. Another example would be the various distribution (derivitive works) based on GNU/Linux. Mandrake for example must carry a similar disclaimer for a portions based on Red Hat.. So if you release a distribution and called it PEARL you would have to include a disclaimer stating it is based on perl. Perl would be the language while PEARL would simply be a "distribution" of Perl.

    If you would actually like to read the related information for once (rather than make it up as you go along) you can read it here.

    The book which the article lists is Learning Perl (3rd ed). Amazingly enough the author seems unable to read.




    Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

    Section and paragraph, please? (none / 0) (#74)
    by RobotSlave on Wed Jun 5th, 2002 at 10:57:27 AM PST
    I'm still waiting for someone to cite section and paragraph that requires the given work to retain its original title. You've read the licences Detikon? Great! Now cite the relevant language. For both the GPL and the Artistic Licence, please, as the software can be distributed under either.

    If you can't show us the citations, then you're going to just have to admit the fact that you're fucking wrong. Again.

    Yes, creators have the right to affix a particular name to their work. But when they release the work under the GPL, they give up that right, along with many others.

    If you want to argue about the Artistic license instead, go for it. Show us what part of that license prevents someone from replacing each instance of the word "perl" with the word "pearl" in the source, making a note of it in the affected files, and releasing the resulting work as "pearl."

    Or better yet, don't. Just drop it. You've already lost.


    © 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

     
    perl v. pearl (none / 0) (#44)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jun 5th, 2002 at 02:56:07 AM PST
    It's very simple.

    I can provide links to programs that interpret 'perl' (just one, for example, <a href="http://www.activestate.com/Products/ASPN_Perl/">ASPN Perl</a>), however, I would be unable to provide links to interpreters of 'pearl'.

    I challenege all comers to post links to either. The winner shall have the most links.


    Back (none / 0) (#46)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jun 5th, 2002 at 03:03:00 AM PST
    Ok, I found a PEARL link.

    Unfortunately, PEARL is a completely different language from Perl. It stands for "Process and Experiment Automation Realtime Language", and has a far different syntax structure.

    As such, you should refrain from calling the *n?x shell scripting lingo, "perl" something it's not.


    Gee, that's swell. (none / 0) (#88)
    by RobotSlave on Wed Jun 5th, 2002 at 04:16:30 PM PST
    Now, if you're done with your little outburst, and would like to contribute to the discussion of naming rights under the GPL, feel free to jump in.

    I don't care if it's called Istanbul or Constantinople at the moment. The point is, under the GPL, I can call it whatever I want to.


    © 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

    Listen, AnALFaCe, (none / 0) (#126)
    by because it isnt on Mon Jun 17th, 2002 at 11:29:19 AM PST
    I can be really petty and call you AnALFaCe instead of RobotSlave, whether you're GPL licensed or not. But the point is that your name's not AnALFaCe. Well, it is now, I suppose. Consider yourself forked. Hello everyone.
    adequacy.org -- because it isn't

     
    whatever (none / 0) (#50)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jun 5th, 2002 at 06:26:20 AM PST
    Of course anyone can call it anything they like, and if it's redistributed freely, obviously he can't stop them, author or no.

    Asshole.


     
    Larry Wall is irrelevant to this (none / 0) (#47)
    by 91degrees on Wed Jun 5th, 2002 at 03:36:49 AM PST
    As a "linguist", he should appreciate that the language can change and evolve over time. English is defined not by experts, but by common consensus. If everyone determines that it shopuld be spelt correctly, what good will it do if he argues?

    Besides, he can't even decide what it stands for. Why should we give him any input at all?


     
    uh (none / 0) (#128)
    by BurntAsh on Sat Jun 29th, 2002 at 12:15:58 AM PST
    dont you think that if the creator of the language called it PERL then thats how its spelled. heh but at the same time people such as myself call windows, as winblows so whats really the fuckin difference. this seems like an episode of seinfeld. just a bunch of trolls spelling it the wrong way to piss you off, so dont let them get to you, they are dipshits.


     
    By the way (none / 0) (#40)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jun 4th, 2002 at 08:47:10 PM PST
    It's spelled purl not paerl like this misinformed author wrote.


    WTF?!?!?!?!?! (none / 0) (#72)
    by gohomeandshoveit on Wed Jun 5th, 2002 at 10:52:55 AM PST
    Have you no brains at all? We're talking about a goddamned programming language here, not some fucked-up URL. You are the misinformed one here. Go back to your little cave and eat rabbit dung. However, you are right in that it is spelled wrong. It is Perl, not Pearl.

    Free thinkers are dangerous - System of a Down


     
    Hah.. What genuis.. (none / 0) (#42)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jun 4th, 2002 at 10:08:20 PM PST
    Wow.. This is great.. The misinformation of many "Adults".. Proves that most of this world is made out of idiots who talk out of their asses. I don't know if this whole website is real or not, but it amazes me at its lack of intelligence. For one thing, to correct everyone, it's PERL, 2, it isn't as much a programming language as it is scripts. It's used in many of the websites, including this one, most likely. Also, lets quickly hop to the Hacker routine.. I'd like to personally laugh at everyone that believes that ever hacker is evil and out to destroy every single computer on earth. Most hackers start out messing around, but become geniuses, improving tons of different websites against those who were like them, AKA those few punks that deface websites and laugh because they think they're cool. Yes, there are a few that do it, but not many. So, before you post about how your friend, the evil sadistic hacker that knows "Pearl", use your brain.



    OK (none / 0) (#49)
    by budlite on Wed Jun 5th, 2002 at 05:11:11 AM PST
    it isn't as much a programming language as it is scripts

    What? It is a programming language. Programming a computer involves feeding it a series of instructions, which it executes. Perl does that about as well as any other language, don't you think?

    I'm wondering if you're, for some stupid reason, considering interpreted languages as not true programming languages.....


    sad (none / 0) (#79)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jun 5th, 2002 at 12:33:47 PM PST
    It's a pretty common line a lot of people draw. It's stupid, but it's very common in the slashdot-337 and generally among ignorant coders.

    -monk
    (made an account, but it doesn't like the password I was emailed!)


    Interpreted vs compiled (none / 0) (#95)
    by The Mad Scientist on Wed Jun 5th, 2002 at 08:03:40 PM PST
    Is there any difference? What about JIT compilers? Are they more like interpreters or more like compilers? What about bytecode, or the myriads of "compiled" pseudocodes?

    Does it ever make sense to put a line between compiled and interpreted? Isn't it easier to treat both more or less equally, and put their differences where they belong - into implementation details?


     
    Nope (none / 0) (#56)
    by Virtual Mage on Wed Jun 5th, 2002 at 08:39:10 AM PST
    You know, you are both wrong. It is spelled perl. If you do not believe me, here is the URL of the site of the the people who made perl. They spell it perl. In addition, perl is very much a programming language. In the begginning, all the programming languages were scrits which were read by an interpretor program. That is how JAVA, BASIC, and Assembly actually started out.


    I hit the submit button too soon and left out... (none / 0) (#57)
    by Virtual Mage on Wed Jun 5th, 2002 at 08:41:59 AM PST
    I left out the url. Here is it is: www.perl.org


     
    Not quite (none / 0) (#62)
    by budlite on Wed Jun 5th, 2002 at 09:17:52 AM PST
    In the begginning, all the programming languages were scrits which were read by an interpretor program

    No. Computer programming languages, in the earliest days of computer research, were basically the computer's machine code. Completely machine-dependent, and about as low level as it gets. Most of the time you could only store one program on a computer, hence the lack of higher-level languages.

    Even after this mode of working became less prevalent, not all programs were interpreted, i.e. the interpreter had to be a compiled program, in early days written in machine code or assembly language.


     
    Heh (none / 0) (#78)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jun 5th, 2002 at 12:31:29 PM PST
    Where did you get that silly idea? For BASIC, it's true. But Java and assembly? Seriously man, let's see some citations for your laughable claims.


     
    nearly (none / 0) (#101)
    by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jun 6th, 2002 at 09:25:53 AM PST
    The language is named 'Perl' (with capital P) and in its very youth its name had been 'Pearl' but that's out-of-date.

    'perl' is the program that interpretes Perl and executes it. 'perl' is itself written in C.

    But anyway: This discussion is wrong here. An ignorant and very lonely linguist feels the need to offend the Perl Community, because he did definetely not have enough brain or will to understand the Camel Book. and therefor he has to state is incompetent point of view on this brilliant language and on what he thinks a "hacker" is.

    He doesn't know Perl, he doesn't know anything about programming (otherwise he would have understood that Perl is the only programming language that can nearly be read like written English) and he doesn't know what a hacker is.

    He's a troll and every answer to his crap-text is feeding his stupidity. He should become an adult before publishing such nonsense.


     
    great article (none / 0) (#48)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jun 5th, 2002 at 04:54:30 AM PST
    This is my favorite article I've seen on this site. I just started reading Mr. Wall's latest "apocalypse" (==TODO for perl 6, located here) and in the first paragraph he's already brought up his linguistics knowledge twice.

    Great to see him dragged over the coals for this nonsense. Keep up the quality reporting.

    FWIW, I like perl and use it regularly. But this "natural language" talk is little more than a silly conceit.


     
    Mmm, tasty! (none / 0) (#69)
    by rotodyne on Wed Jun 5th, 2002 at 10:35:20 AM PST
    Hahaha, I must admit that I enjoyed this article immensely.

    For a site that does a wonderful job of satisfying one's satirical needs, this strikes me as being dead-on accurate for a change.

    No doubt, Larry is full of BS. As somebody well acquainted with literally dozens of computer languages, and their design and implementation, I appreciate that Perl is not a well designed language. However, I'm not well versed in natural linguistics, and so I wonder how many of the rebuttals in this article are similarly BS.


    Nope, no BS there (none / 0) (#110)
    by em on Thu Jun 6th, 2002 at 03:19:13 PM PST
    However, I'm not well versed in natural linguistics, and so I wonder how many of the rebuttals in this article are similarly BS.

    The one rebuttal that requires knowledge of linguistics is the one involving "topicalization". And you don't have to take my word for it (although I think the "process" bit in that definition is crap...)
    --em
    Associate Editor, Adequacy.org


     
    Is Virtual Mage for real? (none / 0) (#82)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jun 5th, 2002 at 12:53:44 PM PST
    OK. I know this is satire. But is he really this dumb? Or just well-done?

    -monk
    (made an account, but it doesn't like the password I was emailed!)


    You have to click some link in the email (none / 0) (#86)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jun 5th, 2002 at 04:01:46 PM PST
    Otherwise your account won't be enabled.


     
    hehe (none / 0) (#90)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jun 5th, 2002 at 04:28:27 PM PST
    I guess you will never know.


     
    I think I saw your friend Rick... (none / 0) (#83)
    by hauntedattics on Wed Jun 5th, 2002 at 01:19:58 PM PST
    in front of me in traffic yesterday morning on Storrow Drive in Boston. Unkempt hair and beard, driving a pickup truck with a bumper sticker that read "31337 H4x0R."

    I can't decide which was more depressing, the traffic or the bumper sticker.



     
    Don't you have any common sense? (none / 0) (#118)
    by Virtual Mage on Mon Jun 10th, 2002 at 01:21:12 PM PST
    You went to a party held by programmers. If a programmer mentions something about a linguist, you can probably assume that they are referring to someone that made a programming language, not someone that studies human language.


    Nope. (none / 0) (#119)
    by em on Mon Jun 10th, 2002 at 11:23:04 PM PST
    You went to a party held by programmers.

    No. I went to a party held by people from institutions that do research on Cognitive Science . There were more engineers than anything else, followed by psychologists.
    --em
    Associate Editor, Adequacy.org


    SGI and PARC (none / 0) (#122)
    by Virtual Mage on Wed Jun 12th, 2002 at 04:18:25 PM PST
    Last I check, SGI (Silicon Graphics) and PARC were computer software companies.


    SRI and PARC (none / 0) (#123)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jun 12th, 2002 at 05:23:34 PM PST
    Do us a favor, then, and check again. Start by following the links in the article, OK?


     
    Hah (none / 0) (#121)
    by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jun 12th, 2002 at 07:40:13 AM PST
    Hah.


     
    Good satire, but (none / 0) (#124)
    by imrdkl on Sat Jun 15th, 2002 at 05:37:55 PM PST
    Larry's language sensibility is recognized all over the world by people who have much less to say than this. Linguists? I guess not. Most of us only know one language, I'd reckon. As a linguist who publishes or perishes, perhaps Larry's not the most famous. His own language, as well as his message, is pretty much independent of any single topic or scholarly pursuit. The open source folks who think they own Perl can also look again. The Artistic license for Perl is the only truly perfect sharing of information.


     
    anyone fancy a pint? (none / 0) (#127)
    by Mr Somebody on Thu Jun 27th, 2002 at 02:58:17 AM PST
    :oD


     

    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.