perlhacktut?

Once upon a time, Simon Cozens wrote a document intended to help novice perl5-porters get up to speed. He called it "perlhacktut", and posted it to the p5p mailing list.
That early version says that the document would be available at http://perlhacker.org/p5p-faq — perlhacker.org being Simon's own web site.
One instance of the document is cached at the Wayback Machine as http://perlhacker.org/articles/perlhacktut.html.
Other google searches for perlhacktut track it to locations like http://justanother.perlhacker.org/, also on Simon's server.
Unfortunately, sometime in/before 2001/04, the server was permanently lost, as memorialized here.
Sometime after 2017/02, the perlhacker.org domain registration was lost, and is now being squatted upon.

A version of that early article appeared in the first issue of The Perl Review. It's now gone from that site, but the Wayback Machine has a copy.

At some point the name of the document was changed to "perlhack", since the perl doc naming convention stipulates that name be no longer than 8 characters (something to do with the DOS 8.3 stricture). So if you were looking for "perlhacktut", you want "perlhack".

After the demise of perlhacker.org, Simon set up a new website, and the document lived there until that site followed its predecessor into oblivion. The latest version The Wayback has is from 2009/03.

The document (perlhack) is now in the standard documentation set, and is even linked prominently on the the main perl5 dev site, as How to hack on Perl.
It can be linked from PerlMonks as [doc://perlhack]

A word spoken in Mind will reach its own level, in the objective world, by its own weight

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: perlhack and perlhacktut
by samtregar (Abbot) on Apr 05, 2008 at 03:30 UTC
    Interesting. Any idea why the document says at the bottom:

    This document was written by Nathan Torkington

    if it was written by Simon Cozens? I suppose that's pretty much the same thing that happened to Beginning Perl when it was revised for the 2nd edition, but Simon's name is still on the cover.

    -sam

      Frankly, I don't; but if I had to guess, I'd say it's probably one or both of (a) Nathan made changes substantial enough to merit credit as author, or (b) being pumpking at the time the document was added to the core set, he automatically gets his name inserted as author.