David Grove wrote:
> This is one major thing that I've wanted to try - create a complete suite of
> actual apps for Win32 using Perl and a GUI toolkit. It could show the Win32
> world that Perl is more than CGI.
Quite right. This would be a huge milestone for perl advocacy.
> > Another factor, IMO, is that no one sells perl modules. What little
>
> This is _not_ a bad thing.
Moral assessments aside, it is (I assert) a factor in Perl's continuing
to fly below the radar.
> The world needs to get away from M$'s commercialization.
Well, people -- and programmers -- need to eat.
People write and sell apps and libraries with/for gcc;
why not for perl?
> The programming world was at one time almost entirely
> free, until Gates screwed things up.
Baloney... unless you're considering only the PC world.
> 99% of those things are complete trash, adding to the problem of the
Yes, but the average PHB will only end up buying 0.001% of the products
he sees ads for in the magazines. It's not so much about what actually
sells; it's about the emanation of background radiation that legitimizes
the technologies being used in the advertised products (i.e. java).
> > -- even if very little of what they say is actually new.
>
> Convince them of that.
I admire your idealism; hope it sustains you when you're living in
cardboard box.
> > Another example: feature articles.
> > It's essentially a sales piece.
>
> nothing resembling centralization exists within the Perl
> community. This has to exist before things like this can happen.
Quite false, David, and blessedly so. Anyone can write such an article.
Of course, more substantial articles would be welcome too.
I dare say, much of what is published in, say, Perl Month, could
just as easily be published in DDJ.
Look at Randal's WebTechniques column for a perfect example.
--
John Porter
Just another perky hacker.
