Re: mod_perl stopped working... #3

<sort of rant>

I second Alex's feelings about this... keep in mind, I speak as a total Perl
newbie, not necessarily a computer newbie. Even though I know my way around
cron and grep, I am not really proficient at *nix or Perl, but I appreciate
both. MacOS X is truly wonderful since it brings the coherence, ease, and
beauty of MacOS with the diversity and cultural chaos of *nix and Perl. But
my MacOS background stands in mixed awe of something like 

s//pop/e;print^s/./hex($`%10+$&)%15/eg&&do$0

I say "mixed awe" because it is awesome, but it is also obtuse. Until my
fingers can create something like that in unison with my brain, I am an
outsider.

I really want to use Perl and learn it, but I want to spend more time using
and learning it, and less time trying to figure out why it is not working. I
loved reading through the llama book because Randal held my hand, made me
grin, and shake my head in amusement and wonder.

But this whole Perl 5.6.1, mod_perl crapola has left me very befuddled. In
some ways I have myself to blame because I dicked with Apple's stock 5.6.0
install... I never should have done that. Otoh, Perl/CPAN/mod_perl install
should have protected me from screwing myself up.

Perl started as a system mgt. language (more or less), as a text processing
language. It has now morphed into countless other uses. One use that
intersects my interests is as a web server, database, middleware glue. To
that extent, I really would like an Apache/mod_perl/DBI/Perl bundle in all
its double-clickable goodness.

Of course, wanting something doesn't make it happen. I would make it myself
if I were Perl savvy enough to begin with. But therein lies the catch-22. I
want something I am not good enough to make myself.

This list is cool because it shows there is great interest in Perl among
MacOS X users. I have seen some famous Perl names on this list (you know who
you are). Hopefully, we will all benefit from their insight and help.

pk/

--
Puneet Kishor
Programmer Analyst
GeoAnalytics, Inc.
1716 Fordem Avenue
Madison, WI  53704
tel: 608.241.7100 ext. 236
fax: 608.241.7116
email: pkishor@geoanalytics.com
www.geoanalytics.com

Spatial - Information - Systems
0
pkishor
4/11/2002 6:31:07 PM
perl.macosx 2309 articles. 0 followers. Follow

31 Replies
1014 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 11

On 4/11/02 1:31 PM, "PK Eidesis" <pkishor@eidesis.org> wrote:
> 
> But this whole Perl 5.6.1, mod_perl crapola has left me very befuddled. In
> some ways I have myself to blame because I dicked with Apple's stock 5.6.0
> install... I never should have done that. Otoh, Perl/CPAN/mod_perl install
> should have protected me from screwing myself up.
> 

FWIW, the CPAN behavior that tries to get you to upgrade to 5.6.1 is
actually a bug in CPAN, that can be avoided if you upgrade to the latest
CPAN *by hand* (not using CPAN).  The problem is with installing modules
that have been merged into the base perl install - it doesn't understand
that it can get them on their own, so it gets them by grabbing the latest
perl.  This has caused a lot of problems for us when installing modules.

Ian

0
ian
4/11/2002 6:43:50 PM
PK, here, stands to represent the opposite of myself... he represents 
the "bulk" that I was referring to that would have the knowledge to do a 
very simple CPAN install/update, and even cut'n'pasting commands for a 
manual recompile (which are easy to find with a quick google search), 
but wouldn't have a clue about what happens during the C compilation and 
dynamic libraries.

My real point is not a matter of technical savviness.  It's more that 
something Apple pushed out broke something I, and others have setup.  I 
might even have been more cautious about the update IF they listed it as 
something being updated, which they did NOT do.  Especially in the 
situation where they are not disclosing every detail, they could put a 
little more effort in support of the things they are encouraging and 
marketting.  Perl is one thing that is appealing.  They ARE drawing 
newbies into a new world.  And no matter who's fault it really comes 
down to, it's the customers who will blame the update.  Cause, effect. 
 Just look at the remarks on VersionTracker.  Most complaints are due to 
something the individual did, but Apple will take the brunt of accusation.

Anyway... I'm happy now... I hope your stuff works out PK.

-Alex

PK Eidesis wrote:

><sort of rant>
>
>I second Alex's feelings about this... keep in mind, I speak as a total Perl
>newbie, not necessarily a computer newbie. Even though I know my way around
>cron and grep, I am not really proficient at *nix or Perl, but I appreciate
>both. MacOS X is truly wonderful since it brings the coherence, ease, and
>beauty of MacOS with the diversity and cultural chaos of *nix and Perl. But
>my MacOS background stands in mixed awe of something like 
>
>s//pop/e;print^s/./hex($`%10+$&)%15/eg&&do$0
>
>I say "mixed awe" because it is awesome, but it is also obtuse. Until my
>fingers can create something like that in unison with my brain, I am an
>outsider.
>
>I really want to use Perl and learn it, but I want to spend more time using
>and learning it, and less time trying to figure out why it is not working. I
>loved reading through the llama book because Randal held my hand, made me
>grin, and shake my head in amusement and wonder.
>
>But this whole Perl 5.6.1, mod_perl crapola has left me very befuddled. In
>some ways I have myself to blame because I dicked with Apple's stock 5.6.0
>install... I never should have done that. Otoh, Perl/CPAN/mod_perl install
>should have protected me from screwing myself up.
>
>Perl started as a system mgt. language (more or less), as a text processing
>language. It has now morphed into countless other uses. One use that
>intersects my interests is as a web server, database, middleware glue. To
>that extent, I really would like an Apache/mod_perl/DBI/Perl bundle in all
>its double-clickable goodness.
>
>Of course, wanting something doesn't make it happen. I would make it myself
>if I were Perl savvy enough to begin with. But therein lies the catch-22. I
>want something I am not good enough to make myself.
>
>This list is cool because it shows there is great interest in Perl among
>MacOS X users. I have seen some famous Perl names on this list (you know who
>you are). Hopefully, we will all benefit from their insight and help.
>

0
mailinglists
4/11/2002 6:55:07 PM
At 11:55 AM -0700 4/11/2002, Alex S wrote:
>
>My real point is not a matter of technical savviness.  It's more that 
>something Apple pushed out broke something I, and others have setup.  I 
>might even have been more cautious about the update IF they listed it as 
>something being updated, which they did NOT do.  

Alex,

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=120111 lists only 
the security-related components in the update. If you are concerned 
about the complete contents of an update (and I would suggest that 
in any case where you are in the habit of replacing apple-supplied 
binaries you do), I recommend that you examine an exhaustive 
manifest before performing the install. If you can't find a site 
that publishes a manifest, then learn how to extract one for 
yourself using lsbom(8) or pax(1) or using a tool like pacifist.

In this case, Apple listed mod_ssl 2.8.7 (technically 2.8.7-1.3.23 as 
mod_ssl is always paired with specific apache versions) as the updated 
version. This implies that Apache would be updated to 1.3.23. From that, 
it stands to reason that a number - if not most - of the Apple-delivered 
DSOs would be recompiled as well and included in the install.

A good low-noise site for keeping track of these sort of updates 
and their implications is Stepwise. Their announcement on the update 
http://www.stepwise.com/Articles/News/2002-04-05.01.html includes 
Apache-specific information. They don't provide perl & mod_perl 
instructions on Stepwise, but if Apple changes something with Apache, 
they'll flag it and you can notice it there.

As others have noted, there is nothing new under the sun. These issues 
are common to all *nix packaging systems. Those who don't want Apple 
to break what they've installed should either install things in other 
locations (fink does this, from what I understand) or leave the Apple-
installed packages alone. 

It's a good lesson to learn. It's unfortunate that it's more frequently 
learned firsthand than through secondhand annectodal accounts.

-Charles
 charlesa@pobox.com
0
charlesa
4/11/2002 7:47:48 PM
>>>>> "Pk" == Pk Eidesis <pkishor@eidesis.org> writes:

Pk> <sort of rant>
Pk> I second Alex's feelings about this... keep in mind, I speak as a total Perl
Pk> newbie, not necessarily a computer newbie. Even though I know my way around
Pk> cron and grep, I am not really proficient at *nix or Perl, but I appreciate
Pk> both. MacOS X is truly wonderful since it brings the coherence, ease, and
Pk> beauty of MacOS with the diversity and cultural chaos of *nix and Perl. But
Pk> my MacOS background stands in mixed awe of something like 

Pk> s//pop/e;print^s/./hex($`%10+$&)%15/eg&&do$0

Pk> I say "mixed awe" because it is awesome, but it is also obtuse. Until my
Pk> fingers can create something like that in unison with my brain, I am an
Pk> outsider.

<Bigger Rant>
No No NO.  I wish the idiots who keep doing Perl golf and obfuPerl would
realize that *those activities* help perpetuate Perl's "write-only"
status to the rest of the community.

Pk, you do *NOT* need to understand that code.  I hope you *NEVER*
understand it.  It was written by showoff idiots.

You are an insider when you are able to get your job done with Perl and
help others do the same.  You are *not* an outsider because you do not
know how to *abuse* the language.  That line of code is language abuse!

Just say *no* to Perl Golf and ObfuPerl and JAPHs.  Please!

</Bigger Rant>

{sigh}

Just another guy who is sorry he started the whole JAPH thing,

-- 
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
<merlyn@stonehenge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training!
0
merlyn
4/13/2002 5:42:10 PM
> You are an insider when you are able to get your job done with Perl and
> help others do the same.  You are *not* an outsider because you do not
> know how to *abuse* the language.  That line of code is language abuse!

While I agree, I must say that there are things I have learned by 'forced
study' of JAPH and Perl golf...

I am not condoning this type of commercial/production usage of Perl (or any
other 'fun' language), but I see their value.

Merlyn, you must have thought they were 'enjoyable' as well, once upon a
time...


For what it is worth;
-Sx-  :] 

0
sneex
4/13/2002 6:56:10 PM
Gotta agree with you here.  I hate seeing people throw away coding
standards and good coding practices because they thing that it's cool or
should be done in those obscure, "show-off" ways.  Personally, when I see
someone show me a piece of code that I have to take a minute to understand
just one line of code, I laugh at them and make them feel stupid. 
Actually, we did that at my company just last week.  We're 80% perl, and
use it in ways that many people would think that it can't do... but can do
just fine.  

The other new guy (I'm also new there) wrote a Perl program.  He's new to
Perl (I am not).  Well, there was some obscure nested tertiary operator
with regex's in it.  Aparently something he actually got out of CookBook. 
Well, first we told him to only use CookBook for ideas, not syntax... then
we passed the code around and let everyone enjoy a good laugh.  I don't
think he'll make the mistake of writing code that isn't clear again...
especially not a direct copy from the Perl CookBook (good book, bad habits
taught though).

It's like some people think there's actually a performance gain from
writing obscure code, when in reality that's not necessarily true.  I
mean, if you REALLY need a performance gain, write that portion in C, or
some other language that's going to be faster.  Otherwise, leave it clear
to read, and cut down your maintenance costs.

Just my rants... :)

Cheers,
-Alex

On 13 Apr 2002 10:42:10 -0700, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:

> Pk> s//pop/e;print^s/./hex($`%10+$&)%15/eg&&do$0
> 
> <Bigger Rant>
> No No NO.  I wish the idiots who keep doing Perl golf and obfuPerl would
> realize that *those activities* help perpetuate Perl's "write-only"
> status to the rest of the community.
> 
> Pk, you do *NOT* need to understand that code.  I hope you *NEVER*
> understand it.  It was written by showoff idiots.
> 
> You are an insider when you are able to get your job done with Perl and
> help others do the same.  You are *not* an outsider because you do not
> know how to *abuse* the language.  That line of code is language abuse!
> 
> Just say *no* to Perl Golf and ObfuPerl and JAPHs.  Please!
> 
> </Bigger Rant>
> 
> {sigh}
> 
> Just another guy who is sorry he started the whole JAPH thing,
> 


==================================================
  Email:  beardie@beardeddragon.org
  Website:  http://www.beardeddragon.org/
==================================================


0
mailinglists
4/13/2002 7:18:57 PM
On Sunday, April 14, 2002, at 05:18 AM, BeardedDragon.org wrote:
> The other new guy (I'm also new there) wrote a Perl program.  
> He's new to
> Perl (I am not).  Well, there was some obscure nested tertiary operator
> with regex's in it.  Aparently something he actually got out of 
> CookBook.
> Well, first we told him to only use CookBook for ideas, not 
> syntax... then
> we passed the code around and let everyone enjoy a good laugh.  I don't
> think he'll make the mistake of writing code that isn't clear again...
> especially not a direct copy from the Perl CookBook (good book, 
> bad habits
> taught though).

Hm - I've got a copy of that book, and although I've only looked 
through a few sections (it's a cookbook, after all) I've found 
it to be pretty good.  I don't suppose you could share the 
example?


> It's like some people think there's actually a performance gain from
> writing obscure code, when in reality that's not necessarily true.  I
> mean, if you REALLY need a performance gain, write that portion 
> in C, or
> some other language that's going to be faster.  Otherwise, 
> leave it clear
> to read, and cut down your maintenance costs.

Here's a problem, though.  Do you mean "easy to read for Perl 
programmers", or "easy to read for C programmers"?  There are 
some EXTREMELY useful idioms in Perl programming that would 
probably confuse someone who had never seen the language 
before.  But they can be brief, clear, and fast.

Just trying to make the point that you must consider who the 
maintainers are, and that not everybody agrees on what "clear to 
read" means.

Of course, I agree with you that maintainability is FAR more 
important than performance in 99% of situations.  In fact, it's 
probably more than 99%, as I've never come upon the 1% yet.

  -Ken

0
ken
4/14/2002 7:17:23 AM
On Sunday, April 14, 2002, at 10:49 , BeardedDragon.org wrote:
[..]
> Anyway...  just my "unclear" ramblings of clarification while waking up.
> I still need my coffee.  hehehe.  :)

I have been following this thread as it has meandered into the desirement
to have perl taken seriously as a 'coding' language, and not just some
way to 'script around', and hence the return to the usual concerns about
'code maintainability' as well as 'performance'.

{ a part of the problem here is the usual prejudice that RealCoders[tm]
have for 'scripting' languages - and who tend to 'toss off' a script
with no concern about who will wind up maintaining it later on... As perl
has evolved forward - the 'all in one' nature of it being a 'scripting'
language and a 'coding' language has screwed up this simplistic prejudice.
In about the same way as the OO v. Proceduralist fights get bollock'd in 
perl.}

When I started coding in perl in 1990 - there was much ballyHooing about
the fact that it would 'solve' all the awkwardness of sed and awk - a
proposition that may actually be defendable on or about perl5.5.3... But
what I found peculiar - and still do - is that my habit of 'regular 
expressions'
is rooted in sed, not in perl - hence the subject line - since my
wayCoolPerlMonger would freak at any /bin/sh script that used sed, since
to him it was 'line noise' - whereas he never really worried about the
same 'line noise' if it were written in perl....

So one part of the problem may be that the more complex the regular
expression - the 'less obvious' it is to those who, while being elegant
programmers in their own right, may not have 'an eye for regular 
expressions'.

one fun case:

> s/href="([^"]*)"/"href=\"".(do { my $foo = $1; $foo =~ y# #_#; $foo 
> })."\""/ge;

while clearly true that it 'solved' the problem raised by a newBie
the question is whether the several lines of 'internal commenting'
that would be useful to explain WHY and HOW that worked is worth
the trade off in the process? { as a housemate noted of some old
device driver code 'glad I put the internal comments in, since I
didn't have to go and figure out what it did.....' and that of
course was written in a RealCodingLanguage[tm] }

The alternative angst for me is whether or not a part of the problem
is that those inclined to write interesting and esoteric code have
not yet run into the 'fun' of actually having to go back and maintain
the code line.... and in time will learn the hard way to write elegantly
so as not to hurt themselves when they are reading their code with
their bifocals.... In short, that as we look back on the folly of
our youth, we get to regret at leisure our wanton ways? Hence that
we should forgive the sins of youth in those about us???

ciao
drieux

---

0
drieux
4/14/2002 5:44:27 PM
On Sun, 14 Apr 2002 17:17:23 +1000, Ken Williams wrote:

> Hm - I've got a copy of that book, and although I've only looked 
> through a few sections (it's a cookbook, after all) I've found 
> it to be pretty good.  I don't suppose you could share the 
> example?

Not offhand.  As I said, I think it's a great book, but it has some
examples that are not clear.

> Here's a problem, though.  Do you mean "easy to read for Perl 
> programmers", or "easy to read for C programmers"?  There are 
> some EXTREMELY useful idioms in Perl programming that would 
> probably confuse someone who had never seen the language 
> before.  But they can be brief, clear, and fast.
> 
> Just trying to make the point that you must consider who the 
> maintainers are, and that not everybody agrees on what "clear to 
> read" means.

Should it matter what language a person programs primarily in?  When
dealing with corporate coding standards, you should try and make it "easy
to read".  No exceptions or special cases, if it can be avoided.  You want
code that almost any programmer will be able to pick up and figure out. 
Granted, there are some things in Perl that are very specific to it, but
the general coding style should minimize how difficult it is for someone
else to figure out.

Taking the view of "Well, they should just be a better Perl programmer" is
not always a realistic option.  Code should be simple and easy to read,
regardless of the language.  Identical?  No.  Obviously that would be
stupid, but as easy to read as possible with the limitations that you
have.  If there is some useful idiom that would confuse someone who isn't
as familiar with the language, and there's another way to do it, where the
difference in time it would take is less than the time it will take the
new person to figure it out... you go with the more "clear" way... the way
that takes the least time overall (thus costing the company less).  As
long as we're not talking about a complete redesign.  

No, I'm not talking about doing a regularly expression match manually,
there is an acceptable limit to tools to be used.  The main goal is that
the code should be as easy to read as possible, whether a new programmer
or experienced programmer is reading it.  And I'm not comparing the times
of one to the other with the same code, but rather compare the time of the
complex code with one of the programmer options (advanced or newbie) to
the time of the "clearer" code.

Anyway...  just my "unclear" ramblings of clarification while waking up. 
I still need my coffee.  hehehe.  :)

-Alex

==================================================
  Email:  beardie@beardeddragon.org
  Website:  http://www.beardeddragon.org/
==================================================


0
mailinglists
4/14/2002 5:49:39 PM
On Monday, April 15, 2002, at 03:49 AM, BeardedDragon.org wrote:
> Should it matter what language a person programs primarily in?  When
> dealing with corporate coding standards, you should try and 
> make it "easy
> to read".  No exceptions or special cases, if it can be 
> avoided.  You want
> code that almost any programmer will be able to pick up and figure out.
> Granted, there are some things in Perl that are very specific 
> to it, but
> the general coding style should minimize how difficult it is 
> for someone
> else to figure out.

I should have been more clear.  I think you're supposing that 
there's some "lingua franca" in which people can program and all 
be understood by each other.  I'm proposing that no such thing 
exists.  Furthermore, there is code such that:

   * Person X thinks code A is clearer than code B, but
   * Person Y thinks code B is clearer than code A.

So who, in that case, do you try to satisfy?  The answer simply 
depends on what kind of people are going to be working on this 
project.  Here's a really simple example:

   Code A:
        my $i;
        my $n = scalar @array;
        for ($i = 0; $i < $n; $i++) {
          $array[$i]++;
        }

   Code B:
        foreach (@array) { $_++ }

   Person X: a C programmer with no Perl experience
   Person Y: an experienced Perl programmer


It sounds like you're in a corporate environment where people 
are going to be coming and going, and you can't depend on any 
familiarity with Perl.  Most unfortunate, but I guess you've 
figured out how to deal with it.  In other situations, the 
strategy would be different.


  -Ken

0
ken
4/14/2002 11:34:23 PM
On Sunday, April 14, 2002, at 04:34 , Ken Williams wrote:
>
> On Monday, April 15, 2002, at 03:49 AM, BeardedDragon.org wrote:
>> Should it matter what language a person programs primarily in?  When
>> dealing with corporate coding standards, you should try and make it "easy
>> to read".
[..]
> I should have been more clear.  I think you're supposing that there's 
> some "lingua franca" in which people can program and all be understood by 
> each other.  I'm proposing that no such thing exists.  Furthermore, there 
> is code such that:

[..]
>   Code A:
>        my $i;
>        my $n = scalar @array;
>        for ($i = 0; $i < $n; $i++) {
>          $array[$i]++;
>        }
>
>   Code B:
>        foreach (@array) { $_++ }

if all you are doing is a one liner, why not simply

	$_++ foreach(@array); # increment all elements of array

it clearly saves on the spare 'code typing' of the curly braces and
reminds me what I was doing....

eg:
	lines    words  bytes   file_name
        5      17      78 /tmp/f1	- c style
        1       8      56 /tmp/f2	- my flat line w/documentation.
        1       2      22 /tmp/f2	- my flat line without
        1       5      27 /tmp/f2	- your 'Code B' with required ';'




>   Person X: a C programmer with no Perl experience
>   Person Y: an experienced Perl programmer

It would seem that if one were trying to pass along wisdom and
experience, you might have a demo of why the 'traditional, mainstream 
Orthodox'
perl method would be that much simpler to do, hence save the coder the 
time of typing out all the 'additional stuff'...

And since of course they are working in the mainstream OSX world,
then they of course natively understand the value of 'thinking orthodox'
and the beauty of elegance already....

You might also want to talk in terms of performance costs. If this
or that 'old style c code' model 'cost'. As was politely pointed out
to me about my habit of frame out in 'subs' even if the sub is not
likely to be called more than once in the 'main loop'.... since I
am of course expecting the 'c' compiler to 'inline' where possible.

But then again, the reason that the Parris Island Boot Campers
learn the immortal

	"This is My Rifle,
	 This is My Gun,
	 One is for fighting,
	 and one is for fun...."

is to help the young understand which is the tool of their profession,
and which is what they can deal with on liberty call.... OR as I tried
to port that to software developers,

	"This is my Compiler,
		there are many like it,
		without me, my compiler is useless
		without my compiler, I am useless...."

but they never got the part about 'deal with on liberty call'..... strange
people software folks....

ciao
drieux

---

sekret sub_text:

	lou - thanks for the URL - sorry you had a project lead who
had so little life experience as to not understand leadership.

0
drieux
4/15/2002 12:48:10 AM
> dealing with corporate coding standards, you should try and make it "easy
> to read".  No exceptions or special cases, if it can be avoided.  You want

I had thought the x operator strange the first couple of times I ran over
it...

-Sx-  :] 

0
sneex
4/15/2002 12:59:08 AM
It should be clear in respect to what yields the fastest development and
maintenance time for the environment in which you are in, while still
maintaining quality.  I am specifically being vague about the "who" I am
talking about, because it's not about the who, but the concept of
maintainable code, and cost effective maintenance.

Yes, some people will have to learn.  And foreach() is something specific
to Perl, that I think is good.  Some concepts in Perl don't exist in other
languages.  That's a given.  And if a new person has to get up to speed,
then they will have to take the time to do so.  Avoiding the advantages of
a language wasn't my point.  From way back near the beginning of of the
coding practices portion of the thread, what was being singled out was
obscure coding; ie. taking 10 lines of code and finding a way to crunch it
into one, very difficult to interpret line.

It's not a matter of whether Person X or Person Y thinks the code is
clearer, but rather whether the department Z, over the number of years the
code will need to be maintained, will see it as "clear", where "clear"
equals minimized maintenance and development costs.  This is not something
that can be put into a specific case, as it's more a general measurement.

In reference to an individual, it means that the individual doesn't have
to spend more time on the same high level concept of execution.  If person
A spends 5 minutes writing code i, and 6 months later must spend 20
minutes to figure out what he did before changing it, because it was coded
obscurely in the first place thats bad.  A better scenario would be that
Person A spent 8 minutes coding a longer but more clear function, and only
10 minutes 6 months later... especially if in another 6 month the code
must be revisted again.

I'm sure you know what I am talking about.  Trying to pick it down to the
nitty gritty really only detracts from the general point.  A person (A or
B) should make sure that it's pretty easy to figure out what is going on
when either they (at a later point) or another person has to go look at
the code.  It's not about the fundamental syntax, but rather the coding
style and standards... things like, indentation, variable names, function
names, 1 phrase (ended with semi-colon) per line (maybe a few rare
exceptions)... It's about the code being clear, not whether someone knows
the syntax.  And in a larger situation with more programmers, consistency
of that standard across the code is also a good thing (where possible).

Heck, I don't even remember how we got down this path from mod_perl not
letting Apache start.  heh.

Cheers,
-Alex


On Mon, 15 Apr 2002 09:34:23 +1000, Ken Williams wrote:

> 
> I should have been more clear.  I think you're supposing that 
> there's some "lingua franca" in which people can program and all 
> be understood by each other.  I'm proposing that no such thing 
> exists.  Furthermore, there is code such that:
> 
>    * Person X thinks code A is clearer than code B, but
>    * Person Y thinks code B is clearer than code A.
> 
> So who, in that case, do you try to satisfy?  The answer simply 
> depends on what kind of people are going to be working on this 
> project.  Here's a really simple example:
> 
>    Code A:
>         my $i;
>         my $n = scalar @array;
>         for ($i = 0; $i < $n; $i++) {
>           $array[$i]++;
>         }
> 
>    Code B:
>         foreach (@array) { $_++ }
> 
>    Person X: a C programmer with no Perl experience
>    Person Y: an experienced Perl programmer
> 
> 
> It sounds like you're in a corporate environment where people 
> are going to be coming and going, and you can't depend on any 
> familiarity with Perl.  Most unfortunate, but I guess you've 
> figured out how to deal with it.  In other situations, the 
> strategy would be different.
> 
> 
>   -Ken
> 
> 


==================================================
  Email:  beardie@beardeddragon.org
  Website:  http://www.beardeddragon.org/
==================================================


0
mailinglists
4/15/2002 1:05:03 AM
On Sunday, April 14, 2002, at 05:59 , Bill -Sx- Jones wrote:

>> dealing with corporate coding standards, you should try and make it "easy
>> to read".  No exceptions or special cases, if it can be avoided.  You 
>> want
>
> I had thought the x operator strange the first couple of times I ran over
> it...
>
> -Sx-  :]

ok, so we had to learn the hard way that OSX really wanted
to be installed on an apple file system and not on a unix one....

So everyone has transitional moments.....

Fortunately for me, my UnterStumpenFumbler was ok with the
fact that for me, I have to know what the 'Orthodox Perl' way
of doing <foo> would be.... I taught him about how to do things
the fleet way, and how to understand Orthodox v. Conservative v. Reform,
and what to do in classic /bin/sh init scriptology when there is no
perl yet loaded on the machine....and he offered me WACKO PERL tricks...

So the obligatory silly:

	Is there an Orthodox Perl IDE for OS X?

in unix I feel safe with vi. but I use bbedit and have found that
it is leaking towards being almost a full bore IDE.... but I thought
I should check with the canonical list.

ciao
drieux

---

0
drieux
4/15/2002 1:07:31 AM
On 4/14/02 9:07 PM, "drieux" <drieux@wetware.com> wrote:

> Is there an Orthodox Perl IDE for OS X?


It isn't silly and it isn't available...


I just use BBEdit and am done with it;
-Sx-  :] 
My new personal quote:
Be alert!  The world needs more Lerts!  :)


0
sneex
4/15/2002 1:27:30 AM
On 4/14/02 7:34 PM, "Ken Williams" <ken@mathforum.org> wrote:

>  Code A:
>       my $i;
>       my $n = scalar @array;
>       for ($i = 0; $i < $n; $i++) {
>         $array[$i]++;
>       }
> 
>  Code B:
>       foreach (@array) { $_++ }


Do my vars suddenly spring into existence now?

???
-Sx-  :] 

0
sneex
4/15/2002 1:31:58 AM
On Sun, 14 Apr 2002, drieux wrote:

> > So the obligatory silly:
>
> 	Is there an Orthodox Perl IDE for OS X?
>
> in unix I feel safe with vi. but I use bbedit and have found that it is
> leaking towards being almost a full bore IDE.... but I thought I should
> check with the canonical list.

There Is More Than One Way To Do It.

That's Canon. That's law. Heretics that suggest otherwise will be burned.

Use what you like. I like vim/gvim. Others like Emacs. They're weird.

Still others like BBEdit. They're even weirder. But I like them all.

The people that is, not the editors.

Just use whatever you're efficient with. If you like vi, you might want to
try out vim, just because it's a nice superset of vi's features (all the
same functionality, plus command history, multiple undos, tab completion
of :commands, an very nice but very optional GUI, syntax highlighting,
etc). People that have been using Macs for a long time all seem to love
BBEdit, and supposedly it has strong Perl support and can be partially
driven from the command line (bbedit++ for that one), but *shrug* vim is
Free (as in beer & as in speech)  which is a nice trump card for me.


--
Chris Devers                                chdevers@mac.com
Apache / mod_perl / http://homepage.mac.com/chdevers/resume/

"More war soon. You know how it is."    -- mnftiu.cc

0
chris
4/15/2002 1:45:01 AM
> Still others like BBEdit. They're even weirder. But I like them all.

Not sure about vim, et all, but I know emacs and BBEdit allow you to
'automate' your coding environment to a high degree.

BBEdit is, IMHO, the coders choice for programming in a multiplatform
environment:  MacsOS X are clients and Unix are servers...


You know:  AIX, Solaris, Linux - those servers;
-Sx-  :] 

0
sneex
4/15/2002 1:55:07 AM
On Sun, 14 Apr 2002, Bill -Sx- Jones wrote:

> > Still others like BBEdit. They're even weirder. But I like them all.
>
> Not sure about vim, et all, but I know emacs and BBEdit allow you to
> 'automate' your coding environment to a high degree.

Vim is scriptable, if that's what you mean. I'm not sure if that means to
the extent that Emacs can be -- Lisp isn't built in, but then it seems
like one of the 6.0 features was that you could script it with Perl or
Python, which I am more comfortable using anyway. I won't make comments
about BBEdit here as I have no experience with it, but yes I understand
that it has a fine reputation in this area. Again, my point is simply that
there are several strong options -- you should go with what you like best.

> BBEdit is, IMHO, the coders choice for programming in a multiplatform
> environment:  MacsOS X are clients and Unix are servers...

Funnily enough, one of the things I like best about vim/gvim is that it
allows the same interface[s - gui & console] on all platforms, including
Macs, Linux, Unix, Windows. Supposedly BeOS et al too, but I don't have
access to such systems. BBEdit is Mac only, isn't it? It might integrate
well with remote systems, but if it can't run on them natively then this
isn't as useful to me, personally.



--
Chris Devers                                chdevers@mac.com
Apache / mod_perl / http://homepage.mac.com/chdevers/resume/

"More war soon. You know how it is."    -- mnftiu.cc

0
chris
4/15/2002 2:02:38 AM
On 4/14/02 10:02 PM, "Chris Devers" <chris@devers.homeip.net> wrote:

> access to such systems. BBEdit is Mac only, isn't it? It might integrate
> well with remote systems, but if it can't run on them natively then this
> isn't as useful to me, personally.


Yes and we are getting OT here, but I try to 'stay away' from the systems I
program and/or manage.  I feel 'better' when I don't have to touch them.  I
am not trying to start an Editor war - but no longer am I a computer
'hugger' :)   Gave all that up with those toys called 'interrupt vectors.'


Even NT/2000...
-Sx-  :] 
(Who is now gonna wash mouth out with soap...)

0
sneex
4/15/2002 2:09:22 AM
On Sun, 14 Apr 2002, Bill -Sx- Jones wrote:

> Yes and we are getting OT here, but I try to 'stay away' from the systems I
> program and/or manage.

So you never manage or program on the box you're using? It's strictly a
dumb terminal? Or do you drive it from the servers? ;)

Plus, I like platform independence. Say you normally manage the servers at
the co-lo facility from your desktop Mac at work, but then you get a call
in the middle of the night saying you have to fix something, and the only
available machine to access it is (say) a Windows or Linux laptop, or you
even *gasp* have to work right from the console. I want to be able to use
the same tools in any of those cases, whenever it is possible to do so.

I think if BBEdit had Windows & *nix versions, I'd consider it more. Like
I say, I've heard nothing but great things about it and am not trying to
attack it here. I just don't want to be bound to any given platform...

Ok, thread done now. Next?


--
Chris Devers                                chdevers@mac.com
Apache / mod_perl / http://homepage.mac.com/chdevers/resume/

"More war soon. You know how it is."    -- mnftiu.cc

0
chris
4/15/2002 2:21:04 AM
At 9:55 PM -0400 4/14/02, Bill -Sx- Jones wrote:
>  > Still others like BBEdit. They're even weirder. But I like them all.
>
>Not sure about vim, et all, but I know emacs and BBEdit allow you to
>'automate' your coding environment to a high degree.

vim has both syntax editing and (in the latest versions) auto-indent. 
More critically for me it has mixed-language syntax editing (e.g. I 
do a lot of Embperl work, vim highlights both the HTML and the 
embedded Perl correctly).  I looked into doing that in BBEdit, but 
there's no way to combine modes.  You'd have to write a C library 
that did all of the HTML highlighting (all over again, from scratch), 
and all the the Perl highlighting.  If BBEdit had an interpreted 
extension language for the syntax editing I might switch, but then 
again, I don't like doing a lot of editing in the mouse, and my 
fingers can't take Emacs meta-commands.
-- 

Kee Hinckley - Somewhere.Com, LLC
http://consulting.somewhere.com/
nazgul@somewhere.com

I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept
responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate
everyone else's.
0
nazgul
4/15/2002 2:38:08 AM
On Monday, April 15, 2002, at 11:31 AM, Bill -Sx- Jones wrote:
> On 4/14/02 7:34 PM, "Ken Williams" <ken@mathforum.org> wrote:
>>  Code A:
>>       my $i;
>>       my $n = scalar @array;
>>       for ($i = 0; $i < $n; $i++) {
>>         $array[$i]++;
>>       }
>>
>>  Code B:
>>       foreach (@array) { $_++ }
>
>
> Do my vars suddenly spring into existence now?

Huh?  I'm not sure what you mean.  If you don't indicate an 
iterator variable, $_ will be used, and its scope will be 
localized to the execution block of the 'foreach' loop.

See the section on "Foreach Loops" in the 'perlsyn' man page for 
the details.

  -Ken

0
ken
4/15/2002 2:39:37 AM
hi, me and my very humble opinion...

jEdit (www.jedit.org).


On Sunday, April 14, 2002, at 08:07  PM, drieux wrote:

>
>
> 	Is there an Orthodox Perl IDE for OS X?
>
>

no orthodox, but...

works on every conceivable platform, supports every conceivable 
language, has every conceivable option and g-wiz, and inconceivably 
costs nothing. Would probably offend vi/m lovers, but since there's more 
than several ways to do it, I like it.

only downside, it is still a bit slow on my iBook, but I have quite 
conveniently been able to code a project working at home on my iBook and 
at work on a win2k machine. if you use it, turn of make the font 
monospaced, and turn off the anti-aliasing.

hypersearch itself is worth the price of admission, which, happily is 
free.

pk/

0
pkishor
4/15/2002 2:49:07 AM
I think he was just "stirring up" debate on the lack of "my" in the latter
example.  Ie, not declaring variables (and thus scope).  :)  I'm not going
to comment down that line, since that would trigger more of a holy war
than "clear code" did.  hehehe.

Along the lines of another post by PK, I like that everyone has expressed
their various opinions.  They're all wrong except mine, but that's okay...
they'll learn.  *grin*  I AM JOKING, of course!!  But seriously, I like
that, from what I can tell, the various opinions have been
voiced/discussed, and it doesn't seem to have turned into a "holy war" too
much.  :)

Cheers,
-Alex

On Mon, 15 Apr 2002 12:39:37 +1000, Ken Williams wrote:

> >>  Code B:
> >>       foreach (@array) { $_++ }
> >
> >
> > Do my vars suddenly spring into existence now?
> 
> Huh?  I'm not sure what you mean.  If you don't indicate an 
> iterator variable, $_ will be used, and its scope will be 
> localized to the execution block of the 'foreach' loop.
> 
> See the section on "Foreach Loops" in the 'perlsyn' man page for 
> the details.
> 
>   -Ken
> 


==================================================
  Email:  beardie@beardeddragon.org
  Website:  http://www.beardeddragon.org/
==================================================


0
mailinglists
4/15/2002 3:17:13 AM
On Monday, April 15, 2002, at 01:17 PM, Alex S wrote:
> I think he was just "stirring up" debate on the lack of "my" in 
> the latter
> example.  Ie, not declaring variables (and thus scope).

There are no scoping problems with that example.  The $_ 
variable is automatically localized.



> On Mon, 15 Apr 2002 12:39:37 +1000, Ken Williams wrote:
>
>>>>  Code B:
>>>>       foreach (@array) { $_++ }
>>>
>>>
>>> Do my vars suddenly spring into existence now?
>>
>> Huh?  I'm not sure what you mean.  If you don't indicate an
>> iterator variable, $_ will be used, and its scope will be
>> localized to the execution block of the 'foreach' loop.
>>
>> See the section on "Foreach Loops" in the 'perlsyn' man page for
>> the details.

  -Ken

0
ken
4/15/2002 6:14:13 AM
On 4/14/02 11:17 PM, "Alex S" <mailinglists@diverman.com> wrote:

> I think he was just "stirring up" debate on the lack of "my" in the latter
> example.  Ie, not declaring variables (and thus scope).


Well... Scope isn't important - we can all just use globals and be done with
it.

-Sx-  :] 

0
sneex
4/15/2002 10:19:29 AM
On 4/15/02 2:14 AM, "Ken Williams" <ken@mathforum.org> wrote:

> There are no scoping problems with that example.

My point exactly.  Beginners may tend to think that 'my' can be left out of
any final code.  And no, I am not stirring the mud; not one bit.

I have a picture on my office wall with two kids using a stick to stir a mud
puddle - one is saying "Reckon we are wasting our time?"

No, we are not.
-Sx-  :]

0
sneex
4/15/2002 10:25:06 AM
On Sunday, April 14, 2002, at 06:45 , Chris Devers wrote:
[..]
> There Is More Than One Way To Do It.
>
> That's Canon. That's law. Heretics that suggest otherwise will be burned.
[..]

it is so good to know that we have Canon on this.

Thanks folks, since I have looked at vim, jedit, and now peeking at
BlueJ as was noted in the missive from ADC .... I just thought I
would check with y'all as to what y'all's experience was.... It
appears that I have tried all of the named variants with similar
results.....

Given that I use the bbedit command line facility to edit code
over the NFS mount so that I do not have to 'login' to the remote
servers at times - and that at other times I use the 'terminal' to
wander around them..... And may go back to using Tenon's X server
to allow for Xwindows from *nix boxes back to OS X.....

I disagree completely with both strategies of on or off the server,
except where they are so obviously correct.

ciao
drieux

---

not like I have any open issues about emacs users and Linux:

	http://www.wetware.com/drieux/screeds/LiNox.html

0
drieux
4/15/2002 1:56:20 PM
On Mon, 15 Apr 2002 16:14:13 +1000, Ken Williams wrote:

> 
> On Monday, April 15, 2002, at 01:17 PM, Alex S wrote:
> > I think he was just "stirring up" debate on the lack of "my" in 
> > the latter
> > example.  Ie, not declaring variables (and thus scope).
> 
> There are no scoping problems with that example.  The $_ 
> variable is automatically localized.

I didn't say there were problem.  I said that I think he was commenting on
the lack of variable declaration, and thus being all global variables by
Perl's default.  That's what I mean by "stirring up debate", as many Perl
programmers think it's okay, and even a good thing, to jave global
variables in heavy use.

-Alex

==================================================
  Email:  beardie@beardeddragon.org
  Website:  http://www.beardeddragon.org/
==================================================


0
mailinglists
4/15/2002 2:16:30 PM
>>>>> "Bill" == Bill -Sx- Jones <sneex@mac.com> writes:

Bill> Merlyn, you must have thought they were 'enjoyable' as well, once upon a
Bill> time...

Yes, and seeing the damage that is done, I've since repented.  I now
sell code review services as my atonement. :)

-- 
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
<merlyn@stonehenge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training!
0
merlyn
4/15/2002 3:07:42 PM
Reply:

Similar Artilces:

RE: mod_perl stopped working...
Alex Sleeis wrote: >I am not sure, but I think the recent security update broke my >mod_perl/Apache coexistance. funny you say that... in my case, things actually started working _after_ the security update. But, read on... >The symtom: Apache doesn't start. No errors in the error_log, >no real complaints on the command line (with apachectl start); exactly the same symptoms for me. No errors, nothing... just wouldn't start. But, here is where it gets truly mysterious. I would comment out the mod_perl lines, and restart Apache... it would start. Then ...

RE: mod_perl stopped working... #2
> exactly the same symptoms for me. No errors, nothing... just wouldn't start. > But, here is where it gets truly mysterious. I would comment out the > mod_perl lines, and restart Apache... it would start. Then I would uncomment > the mod_perl lines, and restart, and it would restart... go figure. Hrmmm... I'm pretty certain is was the security update that broke this for me. I checked my logs to see when mod_perl was last successfully started. It was about the same date that I updated. > actually, the AddModule and the LoadModule lines go hand-in-hand. Dunno why > this is so, but if you comment one, you have to comment the other also... > and vice versa. Afaik, that is what you are doing wrong. For me, this doesn't seem to be the case. The LoadModule line can exist without the AddModule line. Although I doubt it would work the other way around, as you can't load it if it hasn't been added. Apache will start if only the LoadModule line is commented out. > Anyway, all that said, yesterday I installed the security update, and since > then Apache with mod_perl is now working fine... Apache has been updated for > me from 1.3.22 to 1.3.23 (I think). Yes. I know that Apache was also updated. Although I didn't check it myself, several people made note of it on VersionTracker. > I know this doesn't help you much, but maybe it will give some insights. Thanks for the response. I think my ...

RE: [Way OT] mod_perl stopped working...
Sorry. I know this is getting pretty far off topic. But... I couldn't agree more with the first sentence of this post. "Show-off" programming should only be used for entertainment, or not at all. That said, I think there's a difference between a show-off programmer (who may think he's really cool and smart for writing code that nobody else can understand) and a person who's "new to perl" and using well regarded reference books to solve problems. I deal with many people here who are new to perl, new to programming, even. It's a struggle in p...

Re: DBD::Oracle doesn't work with Oracle 10g (10.1.0.3) under Mac OS X (10.3.8) or how to make it working?
Hermez, et al, On Apr 9, 2005, Hermez <4Hertz@gmx.de> wrote: > After painful days and nights, trying to make DBD::Oracle working > with Oracle 10g Release 1 (10.1.0.3) on Mac OS X, I am at my wits' > end. > I have started the hard trip with the Oracle instant client and even > the above mentioned full version doesn't lead to a solution. > Afterwards, I have followed the advice mentioned in README.macosx > (included in DBD::Oracle), and installed Perl from scratch. Without > progress, unfortunately. > Let me describe the affected envir...

RE: bugzilla stopped working
Works now! I have changed my.ini file to specifically tell MySQL where the "tmpdir" is located. Simply added tmpdir="C:/temp/" under [mysqld] section. What bugs me is that I didn't change anything on that WinServer 2003 box that runs MySQL and Bugzilla. And the whole thing worked since mid-March without "tmpdir" specified in the my.ini file. Weird. Thank you VERY MUCH for help. Maybe I should try installing it on Linux. :-) Yuri -----Original Message----- From: Christopher Hicks [mailto:chicks@chicks.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 200...

3.6 stopped working reinstalling 3.5
Name: Connie Email: ctyankee1athotmaildotcom Product: Firefox Summary: 3.6 stopped working reinstalling 3.5 Comments: I have had a lot of changes in my computer. Installed Window 7, had no trouble with Firefox 6. It would not go on the net today even though it was running in the Task Master about 4 times. I kept clicking on it the icon and thought it was not running but it was. Changes in my computer that might have caused a conflict installed a patch for HP new compute because scanner would not work or an update on a Script add on that updated in Firefox, I am just gue...

FireFox 3.5.3 stops web sites working
Name: Email: rrcarcioatgmaildotcom Product: Firefox Summary: FireFox 3.5.3 stops web sites working Comments: Don't need answer just either fix 3.5.3 or don't ofter it to me for upgrade. I have tried it twice now and each time several web sites stopped working correctly: Hot mail at http://by113w.bay113.mail.live.com/default.aspx?n=422352830, iGoogle at http://www.google.com/ig?refresh=1 and AccuWeather at: http://www.google.com/ig?refresh=1. So PLEASE Fix Or Stop trying to upgrade me Browser Details: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-GB; rv:1.9.1.2) Ge...

Autofill stopped working when upgraded to 3.1 Beta 3
Name: Luis Gonzalez Product: Firefox Summary: Autofill stopped working when upgraded to 3.1 Beta 3 Comments: Autofill stopped working when upgraded to 3.1 Beta 3 Browser Details: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1b3) Gecko/20090305 Firefox/3.1b3 From URL: http://hendrix.mozilla.org/ Note to readers: Hendrix gives no expectation of a response to this feedback but if you wish to provide one you must BCC (not CC) the sender for them to see it. ...

3.6 stopped working reinstalling 3.5 #2
Name: Connie Email: ctyankee1athotmaildotcom Product: Firefox Summary: 3.6 stopped working reinstalling 3.5 Comments: I have had a lot of changes in my computer. Installed Window 7, had no trouble with Firefox 6. It would not go on the net today even though it was running in the Task Master about 4 times. I kept clicking on it the icon and thought it was not running but it was. Changes in my computer that might have caused a conflict installed a patch for HP new compute because scanner would not work or an update on a Script add on that updated in Firefox, I am just gue...

openSuse 11.3: internet stopped working (was working fine)
Hi, I installed OS 11.3; was working fine with Internet since yesterdad; I have been having problems with my ISP / DSL; the cablemodem went down several times yesterday. Yet, when it begun to work, the PC could not have access to internet any more, not even to the Thompson web config page (192.168.1.254). I setup an old laptop with Win XP and it could access Internet; following some posts here, I deleted the eth0 configuration in Yast, and have it creted again... didn't work. Any help please? -- alquimista ---------------------------------------------------------------...

Firefox 3 and 3.01 not working with MacOSX 10.4.11
Name: Filipe Freitas Email: masilliatgmaildotcom Product: Firefox Summary: Firefox 3 and 3.01 not working with MacOSX 10.4.11 Comments: 2 months ago I tried Firefox 3 with my iMac... Not good... even without any extensions, firefox kept crashing frequently and messing up characters with lots of websites, very annoying as you may guess. I downgrade it to Firefox 2, and i've been using it with no problem at all. Yesterday i made the update to Firefox 3.01, and the same problems happened! I uninstalled Firefox minutes after. I am using Safari now, and will keep it u...

RE: Re: Re: Sub not working as it should
You don't need to be sorry - it's the right choice ;-) Philipp > -----Original Message----- > > I am sorry I am migrating over to perl (love the built > in debugger) > --- Saadat Saeed <saadat_saeed@yahoo.com> wrote: > > Thanks for the quick reponse - looks like I confuse > > my > > vbscript skills a bit... I am new to perl and am > > migrating over to vbscript! > > > > Regards > > > > > > --- Jeff 'japhy' Pinyan <japhy@perlmonk.org> wrote: > > > On Jan 21, Saadat S...

stopped working #3
Name: Ivan Runák Email: irunakatatlasdotsk Product: Firefox Summary: stopped working Comments: stopped working firefox 1.9.1.3497 ,computer freezing and must shut down your computer and turn on again,thank Browser Details: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; sk; rv:1.9.1.2) Gecko/20090729 Firefox/3.5.2 From URL: http://hendrix.mozilla.org/ Note to readers: Hendrix gives no expectation of a response to this feedback but if you wish to provide one you must BCC (not CC) the sender for them to see it. ...

Agent stops working, Reboot and it works, Then it stops again...
--____DEGYPLFFFEADCDXTFEXF____ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: inline; modification-date="Thu, 14 Jan 2009 15:26:30 +0100" SGkuDQoNCkkgaGF2ZSBzb21lIHByb2JsZW0gd2l0aCB0aGUgYWdlbnQgKCAxMC4xLjIuYSkgd2hl biBpIGxvZyBpbiB0byB0aGUgZGV2aWNlICggb25seSBoYXZlIG9uZSwgZm9yIHRlc3RpbmcgKSB0 aGUgQWdlbnQgbG9hZHMgdGhlIFBvbGljeXMgYW5kIHRoZSBCdW5kbGVzLi4uDQpCdXQgdGhlbiBh ZnRlciBzb21lIG1pbnV0ZXMsIGl0IHN0b3BzIHdvcmtpbmcsIGFuZCB0aGUgQnVuZGxlcyBEaXNz YXBlcmVzIGZyb20gdGhlIGRldmljZS4gSWYgaSBSZWJvb3QgdGhlIGRldmljZSBpdCBjb21lcyBi YWNr...

re: mod_perl on MacOSX
*This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(tm) Pro* Someone on this list pointed out to me where some mod_perl files could be found on MacOSX. How do you use those files to program mod_perl scripts? Where do you put your mod_perl scripts? I personally do not think that those files can be used since the version of Apache supplied with MacOS X does not include the mod_perl module (httpd -l does not list mod_perl). Philippe de Rochambeau pr1@club-internet.fr wrote: >*This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(tm) Pro* >Someone...

mod_perl stopped working...
Hi, I am not sure, but I think the recent security update broke my mod_perl/Apache coexistance. I am not sure because it wasn't something I checked right after installing it. Also, things are fine on my other OS X box which also got the update. I have not recompiled anything. What I have is what came with original installed and the latest updates. The symtom: Apache doesn't start. No errors in the error_log, no real complaints on the command line (with apachectl start); just the warning about resolving the "fully qualified domain name"... which I know I can easily fix by setting it in the conf file (but that's besides the point here). I traced it down to the AddModule mod_perl.c line. Assuming all other mod_perl directives are commented out (PerlRequire, etc), commenting out the AddModule line lets Apache start up. The only uncommented line in reference to mod_perl is LoadModule line. What I find disturbing is that I don't see any errors about Apache not starting anywhere. It looks just like it would if it successfully started, except no processes are running. I had this working before. I didn't use it for a week or two, and when I went to play with it again a few days ago, I discovered the problem. Does anyone know of this being a common problem? Does anyone know of anything I could/should try to resolve this problem. I can do the whole recompile thing, but would like to try other o...

3.05, worked. 3.07 worked. Update to 3.08 did not. Running WinXP
Name: PFE Product: Firefox Summary: 3.05, worked. 3.07 worked. Update to 3.08 did not. Running WinXP Comments: Upon receiving an automatic update to 3.07 to 3.08, Firefox 3.08 could not locate any entered web addresses. 3.07 previously worked fine FYI THANKS Browser Details: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.0.5) Gecko/2008120122 Firefox/3.0.5 From URL: http://hendrix.mozilla.org/ Note to readers: Hendrix gives no expectation of a response to this feedback but if you wish to provide one you must BCC (not CC) the sender for them to see it. ...

3.08 won't work and has stopped all FF versions working
Name: Fiona Martin Email: frmartinatusyddotedudotau Product: Firefox Summary: 3.08 won't work and has stopped all FF versions working Comments: Hi - I'm on a Mac pro laptop 2.4 Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo, v.10.5.2. Ever since I downloaded FF 3.08 I have had problems - not only were my delicious tools incompatible but my browser stopped working. Now I can't get any other earlier version to work either. I tried to reinstall 3.08 today. I get to the menu check for compatible add-ons - and it hangs and gives an error page saying it can't access Mozilla. I'...

After Upgrade to 11.3 b43-driver stops working after some time (wl driver working!)
Hi all, after upgrading to 11.3 I have problems in using the b43 driver. It just disconnects after some period of time (sometimes sooner, sometimes later) with the following messages: Code: -------------------- Jul 19 21:55:33 data kernel: [ 1104.293969] [drm] Num pipes: 1 Jul 19 21:55:49 data kernel: [ 1120.316042] No probe response from AP 00:15:0c:c6:b9:9b after 500ms, disconnecting. Jul 19 21:55:49 data kernel: [ 1120.340128] cfg80211: Calling CRDA to update world regulatory domain Jul 19 21:55:49 data kernel: [ 1120.578655] cfg80211: World regulatory domain ...

Re: helpmaker stopped working
> {quote:title=Tom Obenschain wrote:}{quote} > Hello > > I am getting this message. Not sure where to find support. Not one of our products. Is this what you are referring to? http://sourceforge.net/projects/helpmaker/ -- John Frazier (Embarcadero Newsgroup Admin) > {quote:title=Tom Obenschain wrote:}{quote} > Hello > > I am getting this message. Not sure where to find support. > > Thanks > Tom Obenschain I get the same error message here on Windows 7. HelpMaker does still work here on Vista. I suppose it also works on XP. I looked at the HelpMaker source. It appears to be a Delphi 6 project, untouched since 2003. I don't have D6 or the 3rd party controls required to build the project. I don't see any signs of support on the Sourceforge page. I will continue to use it on Vista or XP for the moment. Am 13.12.2014 09:12, schrieb Roger Lascelles: >> {quote:title=Tom Obenschain wrote:}{quote} >> Hello >> >> I am getting this message. Not sure where to find support. >> >> Thanks >> Tom Obenschain > > I get the same error message here on Windows 7. HelpMaker does still work here on Vista. I suppose it also works on XP. > > I looked at the HelpMaker source. It appears to be a Delphi 6 project, untouched since 2003. I don't have D6 or the 3rd party controls required to build the project. I don't see any signs of support on the Sourcefor...

Firefox has stopped working #3
Name: Tilo Weger Email: twegerathotmaildotcom Product: Firefox Summary: Firefox has stopped working Comments: This message I get now several times per day and I can not work with this unreliable service. Although it says that you will look into the problem I never hear of it not did it improve. I guess I have to use Explorer instead. Tilo Weger Browser Details: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.0.8) Gecko/2009032609 Firefox/3.0.8 From URL: http://hendrix.mozilla.org/ Note to readers: Hendrix gives no expectation of a response to this feedback but if you wish to provide one you must BCC (not CC) the sender for them to see it. ...

Firefox stopped working #3
Name: Red Product: Firefox Summary: Firefox stopped working Comments: Firefox automatically downloaded and updated this afternoon. It stopped working immediately afterwards. Now having to use IE and trying to figure out the bug. No dice so far, it's really starting to make me mad. Browser Details: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.30; InfoPath.1) From URL: http://hendrix.mozilla.org/ Note to readers: Hendrix gives no expectation of a response to this feedback but if you wish to provide one ...

Beta 3 rel 3: what works in v2 that does not work in 3r3
Name: Phil Davis Email: pdavisatmindspringdotcom Product: Firefox Summary: Beta 3 rel 3: what works in v2 that does not work in 3r3 Comments: Link scanner, Zone Labs Force Field, Snag it tool bar Browser Details: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9b3) Gecko/2008020514 Firefox/3.0b3 ...

Firefox stops working #3
Name: Jack Email: jackglickmanathotmaildotcom Product: Firefox Summary: Firefox stops working Comments: When I leave my Mac with Firefox running and come back 2 or 3 hours later, Firefox just shows a "website cannot be found" page. I have to quit and restart it. Browser Details: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.0.12) Gecko/2009070609 Firefox/3.0.12 From URL: http://hendrix.mozilla.org/ Note to readers: Hendrix gives no expectation of a response to this feedback but if you wish to provide one you must BCC (not CC) the sender for the...

Web resources about - Re: mod_perl stopped working... #3 - perl.macosx

Perl - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Since then, it has undergone many changes and revisions and become widely popular amongst programmers. Larry Wall continues to oversee development ...

Index of /Library
... Apache/2.0.64 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.0.64 OpenSSL/0.9.8e-fips-rhel5 mod_auth_passthrough/2.1 mod_bwlimited/1.4 FrontPage/5.0.2.2635 PHP/5.2.17 mod_perl/2.0.6 ...

The Network People, Inc. - Your First Source for Applied Internet Server Technologies
Apache + mod_ssl + mod_perl + mod+php for FreeBSD - ( v 1.3.27 ) This is useful if you want to use mod_perl with Apache 1.x. If you compile mod_perl ...

About the security content of Mac OS X v10.6.5 and Security Update 2010-007
This document describes the security content of Mac OS X v10.6.5 and Security Update 2010-007.

Index of /wordpress
... 04-Mar-2011 17:25 - Apache/2.2.22 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.2.22 OpenSSL/1.0.1c PHP/5.2.17 with Suhosin-Patch mod_apreq2-20051231/2.6.0 mod_perl/2.0.5 ...

Computer Books
Books on various Computer Technologies and Programming Languages

Everything User Search - Everything2.com
Everything2 is a community for fiction, nonfiction, poetry, reviews, and more. Get writing help or enjoy nearly a half million pieces of original ...

Perl Cookbook - Tom Christiansen, Nathan Torkington - Google Books
... The second edition of Perl Cookbook has been fully updated for Perl 5.8, with extensive changes for Unicode support, I/O layers, mod_perl, and ...

high scalability (3)
Home Real Life Architectures Strategies All Posts Advertising Book Store Start Here contact All Time Favorites RSS Home Real Life Architectures ...


Resources last updated: 3/11/2016 2:40:22 PM