Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
"be consistent"
 
PerlMonks  

Re^2: Creating a random generator

by Lady_Aleena (Priest)
on Sep 07, 2007 at 19:22 UTC ( [id://637741] : note . print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re: Creating a random generator
in thread Creating a random generator

I found another site that could be added...

http://www.tizag.com/perlT/index.php

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Creating a random generator
by blazar (Canon) on Sep 27, 2007 at 13:04 UTC

    First of all you may have rendered that url with [http://www.tizag.com/perlT/index.php] or [http://www.tizag.com/perlT/index.php|site], which render respectively like http://www.tizag.com/perlT/index.php and site respectively.

    Then, having given a peek at that page and reading the very introduction:

    "This tutorial will be covering the PERL syntax and should provide you with a very solid foundation of PERL for you to build upon. It is recommended that before you start walking through our tutorial that you have a general understanding of Web Development as well as some background knowledge of HTML and CSS as our tutorial is directed toward Web programming."

    I can tell you in advance that it is definitely a site to be avoided like plague.

      May I ask why that site should be avoided? It is actually one of the cleaner sites out there. The sample code is at least legible without me having to <ctrl><mousewheel-up> to read it. It looks like it has a W3Schools feel to it.

      Is it the fact that the tutorial is geared for web development? Web development and scripting go hand-in-hand. That is the reason I came here; I want to have a better and smaller web site through scripts. Javascript is too confusing, but Perl looks like it at least has some hard and fast rules to use it.

      A select box, a hash of arrays, and a loop might save me the headache of maintaining 9 seperate web pages. (Though I am not sure about how Google will list it; will I get the listings for each option <hoping>, or just the one, or none because it would be a Perl script.)

      Oh, and sorry for not linking it. I am still getting used to posting here. This forum is unlike the ones I am used to where I have to actually use html code to make by posts look good, though, I can handle it.

        May I ask why that site should be avoided?

        I will comment on some random excerpts from the site below.

        It is actually one of the cleaner sites out there. The sample code is at least legible without me having to <ctrl><mousewheel-up> to read it. It looks like it has a W3Schools feel to it.

        Should I create a deliberately full of bullshit clean site with a W3Schools feel, would you trust everything that's written into it, or consider it valuable?

        Is it the fact that the tutorial is geared for web development? Web development and scripting go hand-in-hand. That is the reason I came here; I want to have a better and smaller web site through scripts. Javascript is too confusing, but Perl looks like it at least has some hard and fast rules to use it.

        (Client-side) JavaScript and (server-side) Perl serve different purposes, although

        • some things (from the end user perspective) can be done in both, with different advantages;
        • they can happily coexist: see the whole AJAX stuff.

        (Yes: I have issues with the tutorial being geared for web development, but that's an idiosyncrasy of mine so I'm not bringing it forth as a "rational" argument.)

        I'm not commenting on your will to make your site smaller and better by means of server side scripting and I wish nothing but the best for you in this respect.

        A select box, a hash of arrays, and a loop might save me the headache of maintaining 9 seperate web pages. (Though I am not sure about how Google will list it; will I get the listings for each option <hoping>, or just the one, or none because it would be a Perl script.)

        You surely have several options to have all of your pages indexed. Of course you can make your urls also look like they were those of a static page. Take for example the link above and consider the url http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AJAX: do you really think that there's a physical /path/to/wiki/AJAX on the machine running the server for that site?

        Oh, and sorry for not linking it. I am still getting used to posting here. This forum is unlike the ones I am used to where I have to actually use html code to make by posts look good, though, I can handle it.

        That's not a problem: you can learn as you go. You can use some restricted (which is very good, IMHO) HTML code in your posts. You also have shortcuts that make your life considerably easier. To me it's much more handy to write e.g. [wp://AJAX] than <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=AJAX">AJAX</a>.


        Here are some comments to excerpts from the site:

        Update: at the request of the person I'm replying to, Lady_Aleena, I put the above in spoiler tags and duplicated it to a new meditation.