Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Think about Loose Coupling
 
PerlMonks  

Re^3: Creating a random generator

by blazar (Canon)
on Sep 27, 2007 at 13:04 UTC ( [id://641347] : note . print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^2: Creating a random generator
in thread Creating a random generator

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.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Creating a random generator
by Lady_Aleena (Priest) on Sep 27, 2007 at 18:33 UTC

    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.

        Thank you for pointing out those problems with that tutorial to me. It had me hooked with the magic words of "web development" and by the way it looked. I didn't look at it as closely as you did. It is hard to find a Perl site that is geared specifically for web development. It is also hard to find a site about Perl that is written for the person who comes from markup or nothing at all. Perl Monks is a great resource, but it is kind of hard going through the tutorials here. That is why I keep having to ask questions. I hope one day to be able to start answering questions, but until then I hope the Monks will continue to put up with me until I can wrap my head around Perl.

        I read that article on AJAX, and I will probably not use it as I have no XML on my site. I will also only use javascripts written by others as the last time I tried writing one on my own, I blew it big time since javascript is so bloody difficult.

        Could you possibly point me to a page here or elsewhere that will show me the different ways a Perl script can be indexed?

        About some of the points you raised for the errors on that site.

        I wondered what Perl means. Win is short for Windows, is Perl short for something? You also made me look up the word shibboleth, good for you...I learned a new word.

        You are right about Perl being a pain in the rear to use at times, but it is much easier than javascript.

        File extensions requirements may be a relatively new to those reading that tutorial. With html, one could use .htm or .html, so a singular file extension requirement may trip up newcomers. The file names without spaces thing baffles me as much as it seems to be baffling you.

        As for the use statements at the beginning of Perl scripts. They are not required to make a script work as far as I can tell.

        The use of use strict is like choosing between using html or xhtml and between transitional *html and strict *html. If one doesn't want strict, one shouldn't have to put it in their script.

        Turning on warnings for web scripts is mostly a waste of space if the warning messages don't get through to the programmer. Some web servers wouldn't show the errors no matter what you added up in use. I am a victim of that. For me it is a fluke if I get a warning with the following in my code.

        use CGI::Carp qw(fatalsToBrowser);

        For simple scripts, scalars will (generally) hold only numbers or strings. So, for the simple programmer, that's all that (IMO) they need to know to start. Don't bog the newbie down with too much all at once.

        Newbies probably wouldn't know what interpolation or concatenation is. Even I have a hard time figuring those out. I have a small clue about what those words mean but still have to look them over and over again.