http://www.perlmonks.org?node_id=430117


in reply to Re: Taking advantage of multi-processor architecture
in thread Taking advantage of multi-processor architecture

You do not have a "PERL" script because there's not such a thing a "PERL". Please check

perldoc -q 'difference between "perl" and "Perl"

That's really quite a silly thing - since it is an acronym after all, but I suppose it's better you tell him/her now than for him/her to get beaten down for it by a random Perl chain gang.

You know how fanatical THOSE guys are! Whoops! I said THOSE in all caps!

<on topic>
all of the above stated comments are astute and informative wrt making single-threaded code multithreaded.

There are many caveats to programming multi-threaded code. You can look at nearly any languages approach to writing it and apply those techniques (though not the syntax) to ... Perl (phew, dodged a bullet there).

If you decide to post some of your code, myself and others would be happy to look at it.
</on topic>

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Taking advantage of multi-processor architecture
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Feb 11, 2005 at 15:20 UTC
    That's really quite a silly thing

    Bravo!++

    Examine what is said, not who speaks.
    Silence betokens consent.
    Love the truth but pardon error.
[reply]
Re^3: Taking advantage of multi-processor architecture
by hardburn (Abbot) on Feb 11, 2005 at 16:41 UTC

    "Perl" is not an acronym. The name came first, and some people put on some acronym-ish words onto it later (in other words, a "backronym", much the same way some people call LISP "Lots of Irritating, Silly Parens"). But in reality, it's just "Perl", no acronym.

    The name is mostly a way of identifying who is "in the know" and not. People who use "Perl" and "perl" correctly can be identified as having some basic level of community knowledge. It's much the same as the fact that there is a trick to post to the alt.hackers newsgroup. This is a historically common way of seperating the chaff on the Internet.

    "There is no shame in being self-taught, only in not trying to learn in the first place." -- Atrus, Myst: The Book of D'ni.

[reply]
      The name is mostly a way of identifying who is "in the know" and not. People who use "Perl" and "perl" correctly can be identified as having some basic level of community knowledge.

      Well that's all well & good if you subscribe to an elitist philosophy. I see it more as a ritualistic hazing that perpetuates in the monastery. It's a joke that never gets old, like when you go skiing & people on the chairlift clack their skis together to drop snow on the heads of people below them. I've fallen victem to this one myself; And that was after years of professionally developing Perl applications. It begs the question, if a 'back-ronym' is widely known & accepted, then does it replace the original word? And if so, does that make writing "PERL" ok? The generally accepted response is "no".

      But the reality is that this is one of those pieces of misinformation that have gotten propagated early on in Perl's history, made it's way into poorly researched FAQ's & books, and has been passed on as folklore. As such it has become one of the most repeated criticisms in the history of the site. And while in frequency it wouldn't hold a candle to "use strict" neither does it hold nearly as much merit.



      Wait! This isn't a Parachute, this is a Backpack!
[reply]
Re^3: Taking advantage of multi-processor architecture
by Fletch (Bishop) on Feb 11, 2005 at 16:38 UTC
    That's really quite a silly thing - since it is an acronym after all . . .

    You obviously didn't read the FAQ in question: 

                   But never write "PERL", because perl is not an acronym,
+ 
               apocryphal folklore and post-facto expansions notwithst
+anding.

    [download]

    Besides, to paraphrase Data: One is the language's name, the other is not. If you're not going to be correct then you might as well call it "Throat-Warbler-Mangrove" (although one might tire of typing /usr/bin/Luxury-Yacht -e ... all the time).

    Trek and Python (Monty) references; if only I could work in Tolkein for the hat trick . . .

    Update: Bah, Corrected link to the TNG quotes page.

[reply]
[d/l]
      Of course, the difference between Perl and PERL is hard to distinguish aurally. Please don't flame or -- me; this is just humor. Sick, yes, but humor nevertheless.
[reply]
      In fact I did read the FAQ. If it's not an acronym, it sure is a coincidence.

      http://search.cpan.org/src/NWCLARK/perl-5.8.4/META.yml

      Note the abstract is "Practical Extraction and Reporting Language". Isn't that an "official" statement?

      But I really don't want to argue about this. I'll go back to my first statement that it's all quite silly. So, I concede to you all who say Perl and not PERL. I will remain "outside of the know" :)

      [exit stage left]
[reply]

        This isn't an argument, it's just contradiction.

        (Carp, that's still Python . . .)

        As hardburn points out below, that was a retronym backronym coined after the language was named. If you read chapter 27 of the Camel it gives the full history of where "Perl" came from (and where the "A" for "And" went).

        Update: Bah, bacro- not retro-. I'm going back to bed.

[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom