Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
XP is just a number
 
PerlMonks  

Reviews Quest

by vroom (Pope)
on Jul 07, 2000 at 00:57 UTC ( #21390=quest: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??
Quest starts at:Jul 07, 2000 at 00:00 UTC
Quest ends at:Jul 11, 2000 at 00:00 UTC

This quest has ended

Your mission: make the Reviews Section look a lot less bare. Write up a review for your favorite module, book, conference, PM user. If you're lucky I might write up a review of YAPC or Memoize

If you really have an ax to grind with a given book... etc or believe it's your divine call to warn others to avoid a given book etc... that's allowed too.

Update: Post your review in Reviews. I'm deleting any reviews in this thread when they become a /real/ review.

Comment on Reviews Quest
RE: Reviews Quest
by BigJoe (Curate) on Jul 07, 2000 at 06:39 UTC
    I would do a book review on the Perl Cookbook which is my favorite but I really don't want to let the book down with a badly written review

    --BigJoe
      I take it seeing that there is no movies section that my review of Hackers doesn't work...

      --BigJoe

      for people who don't know me that well this is a joke..
RE: Reviews Quest
by Ovid (Cardinal) on Jul 07, 2000 at 19:42 UTC
    Hmm... I have a book I'd love to do a review on: "Perl and CGI for the World Wide Web" by Elizabeth Castro. However, the review would be, amongst other things, a warning with examples as to why it should be avoided. The Quest is a review "for your favorite module, book," etc. I think a review of a poorly done work, if handled properly, would be appropriate. I assume that no one objects?

    The link Reviews Section actually heads to a post requesting that a Reviews (that's the good link) area be set up.

    Oh, I see from rereading the Quest that I can post a review about my favorite PM user. I wonder how much I can write about me before the contest deadline :)

    Update: I see that vroom has noted that it's okay to write a negative review if we feel the need (I wonder if that was up there before and I simply missed it?). Also, I've noticed that my review of Castro's book is going on longer than I intended. I think it's going to turn into my largest post of all time if I'm not careful with the editing :(

    Update #2: I have finished the review (work was a bit slow today). You can find it at this link.

    Cheers,
    Ovid

      I think that a review of something to be avoided would be very helpful, actually.
      I dont know what other people feel, but I personally see either a good or bad review as being worthwhile to read - I wouldnt want to buy a lame book, and if I saw a well written post about why book A is bad, I would be very grateful
      Regards,
      spectre
RE: Reviews Quest
by ivory (Pilgrim) on Jul 08, 2000 at 01:28 UTC
    I want to write a review of the book, "Elements of programming with Perl", by Andrew Johnson. I found it to be very helpful first perl book (looked at the O'Reilly books and they weren't as good for learning). The book has excercises which is very helpful, although no example solutions, which would have been helpful the couple of times I got stuck. --Ivory
RE: Reviews Quest
by CMonster (Scribe) on Jul 08, 2000 at 01:43 UTC

    Hmmm.

    I see three possible places to post reviews for the Quest, and none of them seem quite right. There's Reviews Quest, Reviews, and Reviews Section. Which one is right?

    A discussion on Posting a review has opened up as well, with more disturbing news. Any ideas?

(zdog) RE: Reviews Quest
by zdog (Priest) on Jul 08, 2000 at 09:44 UTC
    Uh... vroom.

    I think you meant to link to Reviews rather than the Reviews Section node in the quest post. I may be wrong though, so....

    -- zdog (Zenon Zabinski)
       Go Bells!! ''

CGI::Carp
by SuperCruncher (Pilgrim) on Jul 08, 2000 at 21:10 UTC
    A lot of monks here strongly recommend the use of -w (however, the use warnings pragma should now be used) and use strict.

    Something I think that most people haven't touched on is the usefulness of the CGI::Carp module.

    When you've been writing a CGI script, how many times has it run from the shell fine, only to give you the dreaded '500 Internal Server Error'. CGI::Carp writes a $SIG{__DIE__} handler so that die() calls are handled fine, and you get the same sort of error message in your browser that you would when running your script from the shell.

    So, make sure you:

    use CGI::Carp qw(fatalsToBrowser)
    in all your CGI scripts. It has saved me literally HOURS of debugging time.
      I wholeheartedly agree with one minor reservation: remember that this is a development tool. Using CGI::Carp qw(fatalsToBrowser) in production can reveal a lot of information to a would-be hacker in the event that he/she can crash your script. Don't leave it in there!
      "however, the use warnings pragma should now be used"

      Fairly extensive search turned up only the vague "new use warnings pragma is in the works" from perlfaq7 ca.1999

      Now I'm curious - what's use warnings do that -w doesn't ?
        My understanding is that as of 5.6 -w on the command line and use warnings in your code are identical. Both "enable many useful warnings". As of 5.6 (maybe earlier, I'm not sure) there is a -W command line option that will "enable all warnings". I do not know if there is a use equivalent to -W.
Re: Reviews Quest
by deprecated (Priest) on Jan 20, 2001 at 22:47 UTC
    Ah, good, I was wondering where to post this, it appears I have found a good place. :) So, a review of a book like Extreme Programming Explained would be okay? I've also got a copy of Refactoring: Improving the Design of Existing Code that I reckon others would like to know about before actually plunking down the money for it.

    deprecated

    --
    i am not cool enough to have a signature.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others rifling through the Monastery: (7)
As of 2014-10-01 23:46 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    What is your favourite meta-syntactic variable name?














    Results (41 votes), past polls