Web development and Perl 6

[Charlton Wilbur]

Personally I believe that any program needs a big user base, and
through the web, you reach a big audience.

Why? Perl needs to maintain a Perl-development group at least as big
as it is now, but except insofar as the size of the user base affects
the size of the development group, the size of the user base is
irrelevant. Perl is there for me to use, whether 100 million other
people are using it or only 25.

Sometimes I feel that regulars in this group deliberately and
actively discourage Perl and CGI from being used for trivial web
scripting, and _that_ amazes _me_. I smell snobbery.

CGI scripting is terribly easy. There are perhaps five hard problems
specific to it, and they have all been solved, and they are all
well-documented at the level a competent novice can understand. When
someone has a persistent problem with one of them, it is either
because of an unwillingness or inability to read the documentation
once pointed out, or a problem with a fundamental aspect of
programming or Perl. In neither of these cases is an exchange on
Usenet likely to be all that helpful.

Charlton

 

[Garry Heaton]

It appears I drifted into the wrong newsgroup. Perhaps I should have
searched for comp.lang.perlforcluelessnewbies as most of the respondents
here are more interested in distancing themselves from web developers who,
by definition, seem to be tarred as "clueless". I give up.

Garry Heaton

 

[Alan J. Flavell]

CGI scripting is terribly easy.

With the emphasis on "terribly", unfortunately...

There are perhaps five hard problems
specific to it, and they have all been solved, and they are all
well-documented at the level a competent novice can understand.

And are unfortunately hidden beneath bushels of friendly chaff that's
been scattered liberally across the "free script archives" of the
world.

When
someone has a persistent problem with one of them, it is either
because of an unwillingness or inability to read the documentation
once pointed out, or a problem with a fundamental aspect of
programming or Perl.

I see several "fundamental" problems (from elementary problem solving
techniques right up to principles of reliable software engineering),
but very few of them are specific to Perl. The only reason that they
_seem_ specific to Perl is often that the novice has not yet noticed
that CGI is not identical to Perl, nor vice versa - or thinks that
their elementary HTML problem ipso facto becomes a Perl problem when
they use Perl to generate their HTML. Sigh.

In neither of these cases is an exchange on
Usenet likely to be all that helpful.

There's certainly truth in what you say. But what to do? If someone
with at least a vague competence doesn't step up to the plate, then
there's a sheer endless supply of clue-impaired dabblers who are only
too ready to fill the vacuum with their own confused answers. If
those are the only answers that get seen, it's understandable that the
newcomer would believe them - and in many cases, go forth and
propagate them elsewhere. It's very frustrating.

(Disclaimer: I'm only too keenly aware of my own imperfections in this
matter, but at least I think I know what I know, and I am aware of
what I don't know: and I try not to offer authoritative-looking
answers in areas where I know I'm weak.)

cheers

 

[Charlton Wilbur]

I see several "fundamental" problems (from elementary problem solving
techniques right up to principles of reliable software engineering),
but very few of them are specific to Perl. The only reason that they
_seem_ specific to Perl is often that the novice has not yet noticed
that CGI is not identical to Perl, nor vice versa - or thinks that
their elementary HTML problem ipso facto becomes a Perl problem when
they use Perl to generate their HTML. Sigh.

It's entirely possible for a newbie programmer to have problems that
stem from an incomplete or incorrect understanding of Perl, and these
can properly be addressed here -- though if it's a serious
misunderstanding, there's only so much that can be done on Usenet.

It's also possible for a newbie programmer to have problems that stem
from an incomplete or incorrect understanding of whatever protocol
they're trying to use, be it CGI, HTML, XML, or the like. This
*might* be properly addressed here, but there are better fora for it.

There's certainly truth in what you say. But what to do? If
someone with at least a vague competence doesn't step up to the
plate, then there's a sheer endless supply of clue-impaired dabblers
who are only too ready to fill the vacuum with their own confused
answers. If those are the only answers that get seen, it's
understandable that the newcomer would believe them - and in many
cases, go forth and propagate them elsewhere. It's very
frustrating.

Right - which is why the appropriate behavior is to post guidelines
(see Tad's posting guidelines) and for clueful people to correct
incorrect posts and direct posters of off-topic questions elsewhere.
The original poster who asked the off-topic question feels insulted?
Too bad. The person who posted the incorrect reply feels hurt? Hard
cheese. Life sucks; wear a helmet.

And in those cases in which Usenet is not providing the answers and
support that the querent wants, it's *his* (or *her*) responsibility,
not anyone else's, to realize this and seek out other forms of
support, be they books, classes, tutoring, or a programmer/mentor on
retainer.

Charlton

 

[Eric Schwartz]

Even from a selfish point of view, that wouldn't be so bad. I might some
day be in the situation where I have use for a good webhoster. I am sure
I'll get very sick if all I have is some mod_php crap.

Speaking of mod_*, what is it about mod_php vs. mod_perl that makes
people happy to install the former, but not the latter? I'm just now
starting to play with mod_perl on my personal server, and I don't see
how some of the complaints I've heard (stuff like, "one rogue process
can swamp the server", and so on) are any more valid about mod_perl
than mod_php or mod_ruby, or mod_lunch (sorry, it's about that time).

Is there a real difference, or is it just a matter of what people are
used to?

-=Eric

 

[Tad McClellan]

It appears I drifted into the wrong newsgroup.

No, it appears you posted to the newsgroup without having
lurked for a while.

That is dangerous, as there may be aspects of what goes on
here that you are unaware of...

Perhaps I should have
searched for comp.lang.perlforcluelessnewbies

.... like that.

If you'd read the newsgroup for a few weeks, you'd see that that
_is_ largely what this newsgroup has become.

It might then be more obvious what "Perl is CGI" has done "for"
us here in clp.misc, which in turn, would make the positions
taken in most of the followups easier to follow.

as most of the respondents
here are more interested in distancing themselves from web developers who,
by definition, seem to be tarred as "clueless".

Not by definition. By direct observation, daily in this very forum,
and if you were a real participant here, then you would have
already seen it for yourself.

Some web developers are never identified as such, because they
don't ask off-topic questions in the first place. Nor do they
subsequently argue about how their off-topic topic is on-topic.

But the converse is almost never true, ie. folks that insist
on their incorrect partitioning of the problem nearly always
_are_ web developers.

I give up.

OK.



[snip TOFU, yet another sign proclaiming cluelessness]

 

[Gunnar Hjalmarsson]

Gunnar Hjalmarsson ([email protected]) wrote on MMMDCXXII September
MCMXCIII in <URL:==
== Personally I believe that any program needs a big user base,

I disagree. Quality matters, quantity doesn't. I don't think Windows
is a better OS because more people use it.

Ever heard of money? ;-)

many users => better funding opportunities => better software

I suppose that's (indirectly) true also for an open source product
like Perl.

== Sometimes I feel that
== regulars in this group deliberately and actively discourage Perl and
== CGI from being used for trivial web scripting, and _that_ amazes _me_.
== I smell snobbery.

That might also have to do with the quality and attitude of many of the
so-called "web programmers". They are to Perl as what AOL used to be to
Usenet.

I notice that you
1) confirm my observation
2) give one possible explanation that I (unfortunately) agree on.

 

[Gunnar Hjalmarsson]

Why?

For funding reasons. See my reply to Abigail.

Perl needs to maintain a Perl-development group at least as big as
it is now, but except insofar as the size of the user base affects
the size of the development group, the size of the user base is
irrelevant. Perl is there for me to use, whether 100 million other
people are using it or only 25.

User base of 25 people? Randal, do you think that would be sufficient,
too? ;-)

 

[Charlton Wilbur]

Charlton went as far as claiming that it's _good_ (for him) that new
web developers turn to PHP, which made me express my doubt whether
that is good for Perl.

No, I claimed that it was good for *clueless* new web developers to
turn to PHP. The "clueless" in that phrase is *critical*.

A clueful new web developer will quickly learn enough to look at the
tools available, and pay $5 a month more for access to mod_perl.

Charlton

 

[Tassilo v. Parseval]

Also sprach Abigail:

Gunnar Hjalmarsson ([email protected]) wrote on MMMDCXXIII September
MCMXCIII in <URL@ Abigail wrote:
@@ > Gunnar Hjalmarsson ([email protected]) wrote on MMMDCXXII September
@@ > MCMXCIII in <URL@ > ==
@@ > == Personally I believe that any program needs a big user base,
@@ >
@@ > I disagree. Quality matters, quantity doesn't. I don't think Windows
@@ > is a better OS because more people use it.
@@
@@ Ever heard of money? ;-)
@@
@@ many users => better funding opportunities => better software

So, languages designed in Redmond must be far, far better than Perl?

According to Larry himself, money does matter. See

http://www.perl.com/pub/a/2003/07/16/soto2003.html?page=9

bottom of the page. And, on the next page something that has already
been quoted here a while ago:

"There's a lot going on behind the scenes that you don't hear about
every day. Many people have sacrificed to give us time to work on
these things. People have donated their own time and money to it.
O'Reilly and Associates have donated phone conferences and other
infrastructure. The Perl 6 design team in particular has borne a
direct financial cost but also a tremendous opportunity cost in
pursuing this at the expense of career and income. I'm not looking
for sympathy, but I want you to know that I almost certainly could
have landed a full-time job 20 months ago if I'd been willing to
forget about Perl 6. I'm extremely grateful for the grants the Perl
Foundation has been able to give toward the Perl 6 effort. But I
just want you to know that it's costing us more than that."

This paragraph says two things: It needs people to develop something but
it also needs the money to keep them funded. So far people involved in
Perl5/6 development have been driven by idealism. But there are some
natural limits for that (like when you have a family that demands time
and, again, money). Considering the impatience people have towards
Perl6, it's best to pay the main people behind it (Larry, Damian, Dan
and others) money. Ideally, enough money so that they don't need a
separate job that would only delay the development. Otherwise the quality
will suffer because no one wants to wait ten years for Perl6 to happen.

No, this old clichée that money is nothing is obsolete. Actually, it has
always been a lie.

@@ I suppose that's (indirectly) true also for an open source product
@@ like Perl.

Then why bother at all with Perl? Perl will never have the user base
of Java or C, so with that reasoning, Java and C will be much better
languages.

Besides, Perl being an open source product isn't at all funded by
its users. There won't be more mony available if more people use
Perl.

Of course there will. Some of the donations to the Perl Foundation were
by companies who have gain productivity by using Perl. When they grant
money it's not so much in order to express their gratefulness. It is
because they want the development to continue.

Some money was donated by companies on behalf of some of their employees
who used Perl to solve some tasks on the job. So the more Perl
programmers there are, the more Perl will be used in those spots where
money can be expected from.

Tassilo

 

[Gunnar Hjalmarsson]

So, languages designed in Redmond must be far, far better than
Perl?

Well, I don't think that the quality of a program is strictly
proportional to the financial resources behind it. There are of course
other factors involved as well.

Then why bother at all with Perl?

Because I like it. Because it serves my current need (web stuff) very
well. Because I feel it has a huge potential besides that. Because I
like the open source idea. Because it's important that people in
Redmond and elsewhere get competition by quality concious developers
who focus on the users' needs.

Perl being an open source product isn't at all funded by its users.
There won't be more mony available if more people use Perl.

I'm convinced there will. I'm debating this out from intuition (I
happen to be an economist), while Tassilo gave a couple of discerning
examples.

 

[Gunnar Hjalmarsson]

For shared hosting this is a problem. You have to do some
customizing to use mod_perl 1 for shared hosting because other
users could access your database handles, redefine your
subroutines, all kinds of dangerous stuff.

A cheap compaq dp, an ADSL connection, redhat, and dyndns.org was
my solution. But it wouldnt handle any amount of traffic well.

What a provider could do so that all requests could be served over
port 80 is set up a proxy httpd that dispatches internal httpds
based on the 'host:' header in the request. This will give each
user their own memory to work in. It is an expensive solution
though.

Apache 2 and mod_perl 2 will take care of this. Each virtual host
can have its own interpreter:

http://perl.apache.org/docs/2.0/user/design/design.html#Virtual_Hosts

Thanks for the info, Todd! It seems as if we have reasons, after all,
to be optimistic as regards mod_perl on shared hosting accounts.