Slash Boxes
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • Would Perl benefit by taking some of that precious grant money and
    paying a site designer or, gasp, a marketer to design a new look at
    feel for Perl that fits into the web today? A new look might drive some of the old Perl faithfuls away, then again, it might bring some new talent into the mix. Luckily, it's not my call.

    Dear God please yes.
    • I completely agree. Being pretty would help sell it to management, managers and those crazy marketing folks. Manager's like pretty shiny objects... but don't we all
  • and are both based on slashcode

    Actually Perl Monks uses the Everything engine (or, more likely, a fork of it). Not that this detracts from your main point at all.

    Slashdot [] recently had a bit of a redesign - so I can't see why use.perl can't have one too. I strongly suspect that the only reason it hasn't is a lack of resources (whether that's time, money, tuits or something else).

    • I recall a series of posts by chromatic [] over at [] in which he blogged []about refactoring the Everything Engine. Did any of that work make its way into the Perlmonks [] site?
      • Unfortunately, not yet. Everything needs more work before it's compelling even to consider migrating Perl Monks to a newer version, and it's not a priority for anyone working on it.

  • See also [] for discussion. And, Chris will be re-presenting his talk in three weeks out in the Chicago suburbs. See [].

    And whaddya mean "cheesy name"!?!?!?



  • The surprising comment was that ruby-monks and python-monks probably wouldn't work anyway.

    A RubyMonks would fail because it would be redundant. There's nothing it does that comp.lang.ruby doesn't already accomplish. Nothing I care about, anyway.

    A Perl progammer I met who also does Ruby told me once that PerlMonks was a friendlier version of comp.lang.perl.misc, which I thought was a pretty telling comment.

    • A RubyMonks would fail because it would be redundant. There's nothing it does that comp.lang.ruby doesn't already accomplish.

      It works in a web browser, for one--or does the web interface to c.l.r really not make you want to stab yourself in the face with cutlery?

      • Well, if Google would stop screwing with the interface...

        Anyway, there's also ruby-forum []. There are other Ruby forums out there, too, I think. That's another reason a RubyMonks wouldn't really work - the "market" is already saturated.

    • I've never liked newsgroups and did not use comp.lang.perl.misc that much. I like the "friendlier" version though :)
  • It does now [], thanks to mst.

    It still needs some docs and other stuff, but IIRC those are coming too. mst is also blogging [] about developing the REPL with Moose.

    Ordinary morality is for ordinary people. -- Aleister Crowley