How to get "perl -V"'s output programmatically?

[John Bokma]

Purl Gurl wrote:

First one in since removal of all my tricks!

64.136.27.227 64.136.27.227 [11/Jun/2004:11:20:23 -0700]
"GET /~callgirl/videfatb.html HTTP/1.1" 200 2358 "http://www.dogpile.com/info.dogpl/search/images/fat girls etc.. etc..
"Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Windows 98; DigExt)"

Yes, you are the first! You are the man! You know how to
use a proxy server! You shame Kevin Mitnik!

Can you give me a complete GET request? Since I guess you are confused,
and that your page, moreover the pics have been spidered by an image
bot, ie. Google Image, and you see hits from people using Google etc.
instead of people abusing your site :-D.

Put a robots.txt on your site, and block the image bots. Problem solved,
and you sleep better.

I also get hits for Jim Hacking, lol.

 

[Uri Guttman]

JB> :-D. Yeah, sometimes she trolls, and yes, she sounds a bit weird in
JB> that other post (12:52 my time).

JB> Sometimes I agree with her regexp-less solutions.

that isn't the point. sometimes that is a good idea. most of the time a
regex solution is more flexible and expressive. but don't tell
moronzilla that. and forget about using modules (which it used to flame
all time but it uses them now) and its total lack of understanding of
the difference between using a module and forking a process. scan google
for more of its inanities.

uri

 

[John Bokma]

JB> Sometimes I agree with her regexp-less solutions.

that isn't the point. sometimes that is a good idea. most of the time a
regex solution is more flexible and expressive.

Oh, I agree, the most important thing to me is readability, and I try to
improve that daily. Sadly I miss some of the Perl fun, but on the other
hand I still am able to understand the scripts a month after I wrote
them :-D

but don't tell moronzilla that.

Ah, well, I think it's not a bad idea that she shows that a reg exp is
not always necessary, especially not for contains literal string checks.

and forget about using modules (which it used to flame
all time but it uses them now)

But I agree that CGI.pm is a bit on the uhm huge size. (Also I am not
happy with the XHTML output, but that's a different story). But in
general, modules are a good thing, and often I can live with the CGI.pm
overhead. If not, than I shouldn't have used CGI in the first place.

and its total lack of understanding of
the difference between using a module and forking a process. scan google
for more of its inanities.

I read her now and then :-D.

 

[John Bokma]

Purl Gurl wrote:

Hoo! Hoo! Look at you boys go! Over one-hundred
requests for Fat Bottom Girls since I removed my
tricks which were slapping you around! Well over
one-hundred requests for the same page over a
period of barely three hours! Lots and lots of
proxy servers. You boys are so very clever!

I really am afraid that you are mistaken regular search engine hits for
script kiddie hack attempts :-D. Probably Queen fans even.

 

[Joe Smith]

Have you considered engaging me in debate rather than argument?

Past experience has shown that attempts to debate are futile as
Purl Gurl's logic system does not correspond to reality.
-Joe

 

[Uri Guttman]

JB> Uri Guttman wrote:
JB> Sometimes I agree with her regexp-less solutions.
JB> Oh, I agree, the most important thing to me is readability, and I try
JB> to improve that daily. Sadly I miss some of the Perl fun, but on the
JB> other hand I still am able to understand the scripts a month after I
JB> wrote them :-D

JB> Ah, well, I think it's not a bad idea that she shows that a reg exp is
JB> not always necessary, especially not for contains literal string
JB> checks.

you're missing the point. it does that all the time which is not
useful. sure you can do many string things without regexes, BFD. it is
almost always CLEARER with then than bypassing them. i have written
entire string libraries for PL/I so i know all the ways to mung strings
and i still prefer regexes in most cases. when you need to change stuff
and add parts to match etc, then bypassing regexes is a major pain. so
why put yourself into that position now? think about the life of the
code, who will read and maintain it down the road. make an informed
decision, not some kneejerk (and i use jerk for real here) like
moronzilla does. that is the point, it doesn't KNOW regexes nor like
them so it doesn't want to work with them. that is not someone to learn
from.


JB> But I agree that CGI.pm is a bit on the uhm huge size. (Also I am not
JB> happy with the XHTML output, but that's a different story). But in
JB> general, modules are a good thing, and often I can live with the
JB> CGI.pm overhead. If not, than I shouldn't have used CGI in the first
JB> place.

so what? how many dinky cgi setup need to be blazing fast? my last
project was analyzing a web based perl app which took 20 MILLION hits a
day. it was custom modified perl 5.6 guts with redone threading
internals and all sorts of specialize c code. no cgi.pm there. but it
was done because it needed to be blazing fast and scalable. but most
(and mean 90%) of web apps don't need that kind of speed and coding
simplicity is much more important than speed in most cases today. your
time is more valuable than the computer's.

JB> I read her now and then :-D.

i read just for laughs, pain or to catch shit so it gets corrected and
to make sure it doesn't snare newbies. the regulars or experienced ones
know to ignore it. it took a few month vacation (in the loony bin i
hope) and many new folks here never saw it before.

uri

 

[John Bokma]

JB> Uri Guttman wrote:
JB> Sometimes I agree with her regexp-less solutions.

JB> Oh, I agree, the most important thing to me is readability, and I try
JB> to improve that daily. Sadly I miss some of the Perl fun, but on the
JB> other hand I still am able to understand the scripts a month after I
JB> wrote them :-D


JB> Ah, well, I think it's not a bad idea that she shows that a reg exp is
JB> not always necessary, especially not for contains literal string
JB> checks.

you're missing the point. it does that all the time which is not
useful. sure you can do many string things without regexes, BFD. it is
almost always CLEARER with then than bypassing them. i have written
entire string libraries for PL/I so i know all the ways to mung strings
and i still prefer regexes in most cases.

Oh, me too. But I also prefer

$var eq 'stop'

which I consider more readable then

$var =~ /^stop$/;

when you need to change stuff
and add parts to match etc, then bypassing regexes is a major pain. so
why put yourself into that position now? think about the life of the
code, who will read and maintain it down the road. make an informed
decision, not some kneejerk (and i use jerk for real here) like
moronzilla does. that is the point, it doesn't KNOW regexes nor like
them so it doesn't want to work with them. that is not someone to learn
from.

But I don't agree with her holy war against regexp in general, true.

JB> But I agree that CGI.pm is a bit on the uhm huge size. (Also I am not
JB> happy with the XHTML output, but that's a different story). But in
JB> general, modules are a good thing, and often I can live with the
JB> CGI.pm overhead. If not, than I shouldn't have used CGI in the first
JB> place.

so what? how many dinky cgi setup need to be blazing fast? my last
project was analyzing a web based perl app which took 20 MILLION hits a
day. it was custom modified perl 5.6 guts with redone threading
internals and all sorts of specialize c code. no cgi.pm there. but it
was done because it needed to be blazing fast and scalable. but most
(and mean 90%) of web apps don't need that kind of speed and coding
simplicity is much more important than speed in most cases today. your
time is more valuable than the computer's.

Agreed, as I already wrote above. "Often I can live". If not, I use
something else.