Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!
tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think!husc6!xmjschm
From: xmjs...@mbcrrb.harvard.edu (Mike Schmelzer)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.perl
Subject: what is perl?
Message-ID: <XMJSCHM.89Dec14183302@mbcrrb.harvard.edu>
Date: 14 Dec 89 23:33:02 GMT
Sender: n...@husc6.harvard.edu
Distribution: comp
Organization: The MBCRR
Lines: 9
I think the subject line says it all.
It would be nice if someone would explain briefly Perl's
history, utility, capabilities and availablity.
--
=== Mike Schmelzer === xmjs...@mbcrr.harvard.edu ====== 617-732-3746 =======
"A matter of opinion derives weight from the name which is attached to it;
but a chain of reasoning is equally conclusive, whoever may be the author."
================================================== - Charles Babbage =======
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!sun!zweig!stef
From: s...@zweig.sun.com (Stephane Payrard)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.perl
Subject: Re: what is perl?
Message-ID: <STEF.89Dec17101438@zweig.sun.com>
Date: 17 Dec 89 18:14:38 GMT
References: <XMJSCHM.89Dec14183302@mbcrrb.harvard.edu> <13316@fluke.COM>
Sender: n...@sun.Eng.Sun.COM
Distribution: comp
Organization: /home/zotz/stef/.organization
Lines: 84
In-reply-to: inc@tc.fluke.COM's message of 16 Dec 89 00:07:57 GMT
In article <XMJSCHM.89Dec14183...@mbcrrb.harvard.edu> xmjs...@mbcrrb.harvard.edu
(Mike Schmelzer) writes:
It would be nice if someone would explain briefly Perl's
history, utility, capabilities and availablity.
--
=== Mike Schmelzer === xmjs...@mbcrr.harvard.edu ====== 617-732-3746 =======
"A matter of opinion derives weight from the name which is attached to it;
but a chain of reasoning is equally conclusive, whoever may be the author."
================================================== - Charles Babbage =======
Originally, Perl was a report generator langage, something comparable
to nawk. I have seen it for the first time one or two year ago; but as
promising it sounded, it was too buggy and I decided not to use it. A few
weeks ago, I have given it a second chance and now I am very
enthousiastic about the language and its implementation.
Perl is now a full fledged language which provides in one Unix Process
the functionalities which are usually provided by complex (and slow)
combinations (via multiple process and pipes) of sh, awk (ou nawk) and
sed, or by a C program.
Perl is now hooked to the OS: the language provide access
to system calls as built-in feature; if you use system-calls for which
Perl provide no wrapper, you can use as well syscall() combined with pack.
There is also a Perl debugger (written in Perl).
Perl has both the advantage of an interpreted language (flexibility,
extensibility, source code always available) and of a compiled one
(speed) because it compiles code in an internal format before
executing it. It runs on many hardware platform.
I think it is somewhat a heavy investment to learn Perl. But, once you
have done it, you can do so many things with it so that you have no
more to cope with many of the hundreds of weird Unix utilities. I
think that the time usually spent to learn all the UNIX text/file
manipulation micro-tools (paste, cut, xargs, head, wc, test, basename,
split, uniq...) and the glue to combine them (various shells) is more
efficiently used learning Perl. Nevertheless, a previous knowledge of
the usual Unix stuff (c, awk, sh and pattern matching) gives you a
faster handle on the language. One reason is that tutorial material is
not yet released and that the reference manual assumes from the reader
a good knowledge of Unix environement.
I think Perl is great for almost every system-administration task, for
very small programs or rapid-prototyping. But it is not excluded that
Perl is useful to write medium-size programs (I am in fact heading in
that way!!!)
Some bunch of good administrative utilities is part of the toolkit.
They provide a good way to learn by examples the language.
I think (I am not sure) that Perl is not part of the gnu distribution.
But it is distributed under the conditions of the gnu distribution.
If I understand well, it means you cannot include Perl or use source
of Perl interpreter as part of a commercial release. This is quite
limitative for much of us programmers working for private/greedy ;-)
companies (For that particular subject, please direct followup to
gnu.mic.discuss or dev/null)
Whatever, Perl is representative of the quality of all this gnu copyleft
stuff. with the following restrictions : the language is not yet very
stable and there is still some nasty bugs (not blocking ones in
general).
I think Larry Wall (the creator and implementor of Perl) is
stabilizing the language and is active fixing the remaining bugs.
you can find the last version of Perl by anonymous ftp to
jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov (128.149.8.43) and get patches regularly from
the same server. If you want to keep you up to date, or are blocked by a
problem, you will also need to get the prgram 'patch' to apply this
patches. Larry Wall seems very receptive to any feedback and seems to
correct the reported problems very quickly.
There is also a mail list and posted digests for which you will find
information in previous posting to this news-group.
I hope that my laius has answered your questions ... and wonders of
people who are discovering this new and promising news-group.
Sorry for my lousy english (yet another not so natural language I try
to master).
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!
convex!tchr...@convex.COM
From: tchr...@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.perl,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: what is perl?
Message-ID: <4049@convex.UUCP>
Date: 17 Dec 89 20:31:43 GMT
References: <XMJSCHM.89Dec14183302@mbcrrb.harvard.edu> <13316@fluke.COM>
<STEF.89Dec17101438@zweig.sun.com>
Sender: use...@convex.UUCP
Reply-To: tchr...@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen)
Followup-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Distribution: comp
Organization: CONVEX Software Development, Richardson, TX
Lines: 25
>I think (I am not sure) that Perl is not part of the gnu distribution.
>But it is distributed under the conditions of the gnu distribution.
>If I understand well, it means you cannot include Perl or use source
>of Perl interpreter as part of a commercial release. This is quite
>limitative for much of us programmers working for private/greedy ;-)
>companies (For that particular subject, please direct followup to
>gnu.mic.discuss or dev/null)
Well, that's not quite true as far I understand these matters. You can
include copylefted code as part of a commercial release, providing that
you not charge extra for it above and beyond your standard release (save
for a maintenance warranty) and that you make the source available. If this
means using just some copylefted code in a new work, then the whole new
work falls under the copyleft. I'd like to see manufacturers include perl
on their standard distribution tapes, and I see no reason that this should
violate the copyleft. I can't really see someone using just part of the
perl source in a new work anyway. I doubt Larry would have put perl
under the copyleft if he thought doing so would limit its distribution,
and I don't think it does.
--tom
Tom Christiansen {uunet,uiucdcs,sun}!convex!tchrist
Convex Computer Corporation tchr...@convex.COM
"EMACS belongs in <sys/errno.h>: Editor too big!"
Path: utzoo!telly!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!
samsung!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!stiatl!meo
From: m...@stiatl.UUCP (Miles O'Neal)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Copyleftability
Message-ID: <8255@stiatl.UUCP>
Date: 18 Dec 89 23:49:12 GMT
Organization: Roadkills-R-Us
Lines: 26
In article <4...@convex.UUCP> tchr...@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen) writes:
|
|Well, that's not quite true as far I understand these matters. You can
|include copylefted code as part of a commercial release, providing that
|you not charge extra for it above and beyond your standard release (save
|for a maintenance warranty) and that you make the source available. If this
|means using just some copylefted code in a new work, then the whole new
|work falls under the copyleft.
And this is (IMO) a bit absurd. If I use the gnu compiler, and link
to the gnu compiler, then if I spend a year of effort to write something,
I have no (legal, ie government monopoly, for those who bandy that term
about so casually) way of ever making a cent off of that piece of software.
I choose to make my living writing software. Everything I see from Mr.
Stallman's published writings & interviews (1) says he thinks that makes
me a jackass, or a thief, or various other things that imply I should
maybe make my living in ironmongery.
Abiding by the copyleft essentially is antithetical to making a living
in the USA writing software, except for the chosen few who have been
blessed with sugar daddies to pay for them to do just that.
-Miles O'Neal
{yr fave backbone here}!emory!stiatl!meo
Path: utzoo!telly!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!
uunet!image.soe.clarkson.edu!news
From: nel...@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Copyleftability
Message-ID: <NELSON.89Dec18212423@image.clarkson.edu>
Date: 19 Dec 89 02:24:31 GMT
References: <8255@stiatl.UUCP>
Sender: n...@sun.soe.clarkson.edu
Reply-To: nel...@clutx.clarkson.edu
Organization: Clarkson University, Potsdam NY
Lines: 30
In-reply-to: meo@stiatl.UUCP's message of 18 Dec 89 23:49:12 GMT
In article <8...@stiatl.UUCP> m...@stiatl.UUCP (Miles O'Neal) writes:
If I use the gnu compiler, and link to the gnu compiler, then if I
spend a year of effort to write something, I have no way of ever
making a cent off of that piece of software.
Nonsense! The only "right" you are lacking is the legal right to restrict
people from copying your software. *You* interpret this to mean that you
then have no way to make money.
There is indeed a way to make money off of Copylefted software. You
find a user group whose members need a particular program that you are
capable of writing. The user group pays you your money and you write the
program.
They get a useful program that they can give to their friends, family,
and whoever else they want. And you get a risk-free way to earn XX
amount of dollars. You *know* that you will make money off of the
program, and you even know how much.
As I see it, what *you* want is the right to make an unlimited amount
of money off of your program.
--
--russ (nelson@clutx [.bitnet | .clarkson.edu]) Russ.Nelson@$315.268.6667
Live up to the light thou hast, and more will be granted thee.
A recession now appears more than 2 years away -- John D. Mathon, 4 Oct 1989.
I think killing is value-neutral in and of itself. -- Gary Strand, 8 Nov 1989.
Liberals run this country, by and large. -- Clayton Cramer, 20 Nov 1989.
Shut up and mind your Canadian business, you meddlesome foreigner. -- TK, 23 N.
Path: utzoo!telly!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!
mcgill-vision!bloom-beacon!shelby!neon!neon!gumby
From: gu...@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (David Vinayak Wallace)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Copyleftability
Message-ID: <GUMBY.89Dec18204105@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 19 Dec 89 04:41:05 GMT
References: <8255@stiatl.UUCP>
Sender: USENET News System <n...@Neon.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Lines: 22
In-Reply-To: meo@stiatl.UUCP's message of 18 Dec 89 23:49:12 GMT
Date: 18 Dec 89 23:49:12 GMT
From: meo@stiatl.UUCP (Miles O'Neal)
And this is (IMO) a bit absurd. If I use the gnu compiler, and link
to the gnu compiler, then if I spend a year of effort to write something,
I have no (legal, ie government monopoly, for those who bandy that term
about so casually) way of ever making a cent off of that piece of software.
The copyleft says "distribute" not sell. You can sell copylefted
code. You just can't enjoin the recipient from redistributing it.
Anyway, how often do you "link to the compiler?" If you change the
compiler, I'm glad that change may be redistributed! Merely compiling
your code with the compiler does not bring it under the copyleft.
I choose to make my living writing software. Everything I see from Mr.
Stallman's published writings & interviews (1) says he thinks that makes
me a jackass, or a thief...
RMS makes his living writing software. He does not say that you
shouldn't -- in fact he encourages it.
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!
zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!stiatl!meo
From: m...@stiatl.UUCP (Miles O'Neal)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Copyleftability
Message-ID: <8279@stiatl.UUCP>
Date: 19 Dec 89 22:28:15 GMT
Organization: Sales Technologies Inc., "The Little Shop of Horrors..."
Lines: 39
In article <GUMBY.89Dec18204...@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU>
gu...@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (David Vinayak Wallace) writes:
|
|The copyleft says "distribute" not sell. You can sell copylefted
|code. You just can't enjoin the recipient from redistributing it.
the way I read it, it says if I write an original work that includes
copylefted code (such as gnu C runtime libraries), I can't sell it.
If I add to an existing thing, I can, but can't charge extra for anything
related to the copylefted stuff. So, that means a new work done with
GNU C would allow me only to charge for copying & distribution.
Did I misread something? I'd truly love to find out I did.
|Anyway, how often do you "link to the compiler?" If you change the
DUH. Almost as good as a spelling flame. So I link to the runtime
library. So I use calls in there. Go figure.
|compiler, I'm glad that change may be redistributed! Merely compiling
|your code with the compiler does not bring it under the copyleft.
See above. Linking to the runtime seems to bind me (sic) to the
copyleft. What did I miss?
| I choose to make my living writing software. Everything I see from Mr.
| Stallman's published writings & interviews (1) says he thinks that makes
| me a jackass, or a thief...
|
|RMS makes his living writing software. He does not say that you
|shouldn't -- in fact he encourages it.
A nearly quote (from Byte?) "anybody who wants to make a lot of money
writing software is a stupid jackass". Something close to this I have
seen posted to the net, and quoted in a paper (magazine). Now maybe his
idea of a lot of money is a lot more than I hope to make, but the idea
I got from what I saw was that since software should be a "labor of
love", I shouldn't expect to make much at all from it.
-Miles
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!
ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!tank!ncar!boulder!gore!jacob
From: ja...@gore.com (Jacob Gore)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Copyleftability
Message-ID: <970007@gore.com>
Date: 20 Dec 89 03:20:48 GMT
References: <8255@stiatl.UUCP>
Reply-To: ja...@gore.com (Jacob Gore)
Organization: Gore Enterprises
Lines: 35
/ gnu.misc.discuss / m...@stiatl.UUCP (Miles O'Neal) / Dec 19, 1989 /
> the way I read [GNU GPL], it says if I write an original work that includes
> copylefted code (such as gnu C runtime libraries), I can't sell it.
> If I add to an existing thing, I can, but can't charge extra for anything
> related to the copylefted stuff. So, that means a new work done with
> GNU C would allow me only to charge for copying & distribution.
>
> Did I misread something? I'd truly love to find out I did.
1. You can sell it as much as you want (and, as usual, find customers), as
long as you follow the license. The major limitations are:
1. You cannot deny your custromers the right to distribute it further
(they, of course, must also obey the GNU GPL if they distribute it).
2. (cost to customer of distribution with source)
- (cost to customer of distribution without source)
----------------------------------------------------------------
(no greater than a reasonable media, shipping & handling charge)
So, it is wrong to say that you are forbidden to sell copylefted code,
though you won't be able to sell it using the currently common approach
("pay me for each copy or I'll sick FBI on you, and pay 100 times as much
if you want the source").
2. Code compiled with the GNU C compiler does NOT become copylefted just
because it was compiled with the GNU C compiler. That only happens if you
link with GNU libraries. Now, the GNU C++ compiler, by default, links in
code from GNU libraries, so unless you make your copy of g++ go after
non-copylefted libraries, you will end up with copylefted code. This is
not the case with GNU C at all.
Jacob
--
Jacob Gore Ja...@Gore.Com boulder!gore!jacob
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!
AI.MIT.EDU!tower
From: to...@AI.MIT.EDU (Leonard H. Tower Jr.)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Copyleftability
Message-ID: <8912201116.AA03520@wheat-chex>
Date: 20 Dec 89 11:16:44 GMT
References: <970007@gore.com>
Sender: k...@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
Reply-To: gnu-misc-disc...@cis.ohio-state.edu
Distribution: gnu
Organization: Project GNU, Free Software Foundation,
675 Mass. Ave., Cambridge, MA 02139, USA +1 (617) 876-3296
Lines: 67
Date: 20 Dec 89 03:20:48 GMT
From: gore!ja...@boulder.colorado.edu (Jacob Gore)
Organization: Gore Enterprises
/ gnu.misc.discuss / m...@stiatl.UUCP (Miles O'Neal) / Dec 19, 1989 /
> the way I read [GNU GPL], it says if I write an original work that includes
> copylefted code (such as gnu C runtime libraries), I can't sell it.
> If I add to an existing thing, I can, but can't charge extra for anything
> related to the copylefted stuff. So, that means a new work done with
> GNU C would allow me only to charge for copying & distribution.
> Did I misread something? I'd truly love to find out I did.
1. You can sell it as much as you want (and, as usual, find
customers), as long as you follow the license. The major
limitations are:
1. You cannot deny your custromers the right to distribute it
further (they, of course, must also obey the GNU GPL if they
distribute it).
2. (cost to customer of distribution with source)
- (cost to customer of distribution without source)
--------------------------------------------------------
(no greater than a reasonable media, shipping & handling charge)
So, it is wrong to say that you are forbidden to sell copylefted
code, though you won't be able to sell it using the currently
common approach ("pay me for each copy or I'll sick FBI on you, and
pay 100 times as much if you want the source").
The parenthesized comment could be a little less emotional. ;-}
2. Code compiled with the GNU C compiler does NOT become
copylefted just because it was compiled with the GNU C compiler.
That only happens if you link with GNU libraries. Now, the GNU C++
compiler, by default, links in code from GNU libraries, so unless
you make your copy of g++ go after non-copylefted libraries, you
will end up with copylefted code.
Well put. Thanx for saving me the time of saying this (again for the
Nth time, for a very lage value of N ;-).
I *STRONGLY URGE* anyone who wishes to talk about the GNU Project to
carefully read the GNU Manifesto and GNU General Public License. The
prose is clear, but some people have a lot of trouble understanding
it. These people should re-read it *SLOWLY*, *CAREFULLY*, and without
the *PRE-CONCEPTIONS* that make it seem to say things it does not.
Then as a separate excercise, they should think about what it's real
effects are and how it really works in the world, instead of what
their *PRE-CONCEPTIONS* say its effects are.
This is not the case with GNU C at all.
At this time. I expect (guess not promise) that when the C libraries
are released GCC will use them by default, and non-GPLers will have to
go to extra effort to not use them. It's not a goal of the GNU
Project to make life easy for non-GPLers.
I would like to re-iterate that use of the Bison parser generator has
the same effect as use of GNU Libraries.
-- Jacob Gore Ja...@Gore.Co boulder!gore!jacob
thanx -len