brian d foy has announced the first issue of The Perl
Review, a new magazine entirely devoted to Perl. This issue, as
well as the next few issues are going to be released on the web and
in PDF only, avoiding the messier aspects of publishing, like dealing with printers and the post office.
Check it out at http://www.perl.org/ThePerlReview/, or download the PDF directly from here.
Enjoy!
brian, the above line is misleading as there is currently only a PDF version. Do you plan on having an HTML version of each issue? While PDF is nice for sort of tieing a bow on a publication and making it layout exactly as you wish, it is not so nice for cut/paste which I expect a lot of us to do as we try out pieces of code.Check it out in HTML at http://www.perl.org/ThePerlReview/,
And by the way, very nice first issue!
Re:No HTML version
ziggy on 2002-02-01T19:06:42
That's my mistake. There was an HTML version briefly during the production. It's not there anymore though.The news story has been updated to prevent further confusion.
Z.
Re:No HTML version
mike_arms on 2002-02-01T19:21:31
So the question that remains is: In the future, will there be an HTML version of each issue?Or can the code files for each issue be made available in a *.tar.gz ? If these were available, then no real need for an HTML version.
Re:No HTML version
ziggy on 2002-02-01T19:56:25
Well, if you read the Extreme Publishing article, you'll understand me when I say We'll have an HTML version (and a *.tgz file) as soon as it's necessary (and when it becomes important enough to schedule for delivery).:-) Z.
Re:No HTML version
bronto on 2002-02-07T16:38:30
I sometimes collaborate with the "PLUTO Journal", the web magazine of the Italian PLUTO FSUG (PLUTO was the first Italian national Linux Users Group).
The Pluto Journal staff is now making an effort to switch to XML. We are building an XML format specially designed for technical articles, our goal is to have all the articles written in this XPJ format and having them published in a bunch of formats (HTML, RSS, PDF, plain text...).
Project is at its beginning, so not much has been done at the moment. We are prototyping the format and building an editor. In case you would give it a try, just let me know!
Good luck with TPR!
--bronto
Jason
Re:Anyone tackled the golf puzzle yet?
Purdy on 2002-02-01T19:49:02
err, make that 92 - love eliminating un-necessary (for golf, anyway - not really usability/readability) ()'s.Re:Anyone tackled the golf puzzle yet?
Purdy on 2002-02-01T20:09:01
Last correction: 82... I submitted it already, so if I receive any help from here on, I won't feel (as) guilty for submitting it. Fun way to kill a few hours...
:) Jason
I'm diseased!! ;)
Purdy on 2002-02-01T20:22:56
I... just ... can't ... stop! 78!
Jason
Re:I'm diseased!! ;)
jhi on 2002-02-01T23:07:27
69.Re:I'm diseased!! ;)
Purdy on 2002-02-01T23:24:02
ARGHHH!!! HOW?! I'm now at home and had to re-write it from memory and I'm at 76 (getting rid of semi-colons;)) and don't see another way to reduce what I got so far... May try & tackle this with another approach...
Jason
Re:I'm diseased!! ;)
jhi on 2002-02-01T23:25:59
65, but now I'm no more portable.Re:I'm diseased!! ;)
jhi on 2002-02-01T23:40:26
62.
(Yeah, I'm diseased, too. So, what's the news?)Re:I'm diseased!! ;)
jhi on 2002-02-01T23:45:58
59.Re:I'm diseased!! ;)
Purdy on 2002-02-02T00:07:38
71 - going out to drink this off... I don't see how I can get below that (but I said that about 92 ;)) Jason
PS: hfb - your husband is Eeeevil!
;) Re:I'm diseased!! ;)
hfb on 2002-02-01T23:41:33
What is this, a geek porn satire? LOL
:) Re:Anyone tackled the golf puzzle yet?
VSarkiss on 2002-02-02T00:25:17
Take a look at Ben Tilly's 48 and Blake Miller's 43 in this thread at Perl Monks.
Re:Anyone tackled the golf puzzle yet?
jhi on 2002-02-02T00:42:48
Okay, so I'm not diseased enough, which is probably a good thing...:-) I might as well
send mine to the monks.Re:Anyone tackled the golf puzzle yet?
jhi on 2002-02-02T01:14:23
So my original final was 59...
$_=shift;y/0-9A-Z/\0-#/;(s/.//,($a*=36)+=ord$&)while length
But using the monks' trick's I can get down to 43, too:
$_=pop;y/0-9A-Z/\0-#/;($a*=36)+=ord for/./g
Yes, no output. The rules didn't ask for it... (And as someone noted, reading the rules really creatively allows for one character replies...)
(Okay, so I'm bored, trying to keep this thread alive on my own...
:-) Re:Anyone tackled the golf puzzle yet?
vsergu on 2002-02-02T03:17:52
If you're not printing the result, then you can do
it in 39 like this:
map{($t*=36)+=/\d/?$_:-55+ord}pop=~/./gRe:Anyone tackled the golf puzzle yet?
jhi on 2002-02-02T05:28:50
But that is not portable to EBCDIC:-) (and it's not just the question of codepoints...) Re:Anyone tackled the golf puzzle yet?
chromatic on 2002-02-02T06:37:05
That's funny. I was on the same track, but had to stop when I told myself "Jarkko wouldn't like this, it's too ASCII-centric."Re:Anyone tackled the golf puzzle yet?
vsergu on 2002-02-02T14:45:39
Hmm, I hadn't realized yours was EBCDIC-capable. I guess since # is \x7b and the letter ranges are special-cased, it is. Very nice.Re:Anyone tackled the golf puzzle yet?
Purdy on 2002-02-02T05:36:36
Got back and now that everyone's sharing, I posted mine over @ PM, too.I'm really impressed with all of these solutions. I don't understand Blake's 43 stroke solution, but it's late here.
:) I actually understand this solution (vsergu's) and I really like it - similiar to the functionality of mine, but a better twist on the math and lots of cool shortcuts.
Jason
Re:Anyone tackled the golf puzzle yet?
garth on 2002-02-02T06:19:59
My first attempt at Perl Golf comes in at 49 stokes:-)
$_=shift;if(m/\d/){print;}else{print ord()-55;}
There is probably something wrong in there, and there is no checking of the input, but it is a fairly simple solution. I think I need to subscriber to the FWP list.Bugger
garth on 2002-02-02T06:35:52
Just realised how wrong my solution is. It only works for one digit numbers.
Oh well, back to the drawing board:-) Re:Anyone tackled the golf puzzle yet?
Purdy on 2002-02-02T17:28:48
As you already posted, that works for one digit checks... some things I learned from PM to shorten your one-digit conversion (which is pretty neat) to 29: $_=pop;print(/\d/?$_:-55+ord)
Jason
This note will probably not bring any good karma for me, but here goes.
I think splintering the market of Perl publications is a really bad idea. Unless TPJ is actively being closed down, having a competing publication in this small a market is madness. I'm sorry to see so many people I know participating in this. I don't know any details behind the project (came as a complete surprise to me), but I see this as a knife in the still-healing guts of TPJ.
Why contributing articles to TPJ and thus making CMP to see the value of it, maybe considering spinning it back to a magazine of its own, wasn't an option, I don't know. I must admit that in one sense my complaint is somewhat lame: I never contributed to TPJ (despite Jon's incessant poking
Re:on a more serious note...
TorgoX on 2002-02-04T23:48:27
...contributing articles to TPJ and thus making CMP to see the value of it, maybe considering spinning it back to a magazine of its own...The people at TPJ/SA assure me that they have "plenty" of submissions as it is.
So I presume that what they need is more sales, not more writers. I recall something in the foreward to SA a few issues back saying that ad revenues are waaaay down.
But otherwise, yes, your point about splintering the market is probably quite apt.
Re:on a more serious note...
bd on 2002-02-05T07:25:17
i'm happy to see another perl magazine, just as i'm happy to see another perl book at the bookstore. each author, each magazine, brings a different perspective to the topic. that expands the audience.i'm happy for a less philosophical reason too. i loved my subscription to the old tpj as much as i hate reading sys admin magazine. sys admin's page layout and slapdash design and crude typography is so ugly. perl deserves better. so do we.
cmp magazines in general (and sys admin in particular) have sloppier designs than anything else on the newsstand. even sys admin's ads are amateurish—they're embarrassing to my profession. i had high hopes after hearing that tpj would be published again, but my heart sank when i saw the first "issue" relegated to the back pages of the dumpiest magazine on the rack (or my mailbox).
with a magazine, the form is as important as the function. we don't need vanity fair here, but the audience is certainly not expanded by repellent design. geeks appreciate good design, too: linux journal just got a redesign and looks great.
-- bd
Re:on a more serious note...
hfb on 2002-02-05T18:15:57
Well, there is certainly nothing like hubris in the Perl community, that's for bloody sure.
I dropped 90% of the approximately 25 periodicals I used to subscribe to this year not because of layout but because of finance and focus. I don't know that I'd subscribe to Yet Another Perl Journal as I think the time for that idea has come and long since gone.
If layout and spin in the initial issue are the only gain over SA/TPJ there may be fewer compelling reasons to advertise or subscribe than you may think.
Re:on a more serious note...
ziggy on 2002-02-05T14:35:18
That really depends on what you mean by "splintering" and "the market" (and, while we're at it, what the meaning of "is" isI think splintering the market of Perl publications is a really bad idea.:-). You could say that a magazine per se is competition for TPJ. You could also say with equal conviction that perl.com, the Dr. Dobb's Perl column, various columns in Unix Review and TMFKA Web Techniques are examples of how the market was already splintered. I've never heard anyone say that the various existing outlets for Perl articles are proof that the market is splintered, or that their existance separate from TPJ is a Bad Thing(tm). With that POV, I don't see TPR as a splintering of the market for TPJ, nor do I see TPR as a Bad Thing(tm), so long as they remain different in a meaningful way. As for "the market", Perl has a very large community, and I don't agree that it's a small market at all. I would also go on to say that it is already balkanized, and that it is a good thing. How many sysadmins want to read about CGI techniques? How many genomicists really care about Perligata? How many web developers care about Tk, wxPerl, Gnome/GTK or Qt?But I still stand behind my opinion that balkanizing this small a market is foolish.On a much broader note, we as a community do not think with one mind, we do not march to the beat of one drum, and we generally believe there is more than one way to do it. (If you want single-minded devotion to an idea, there's a snake herders conference this week in DC...) There are many different Perl sub-communities out there, and it is unfair to expect that TPJ serve them all equally. That's why we have perl.com and the others. Now, we have TPR as well.
TPR is the result of a mostly (er, almost entirely) dormant effort for the past 3 years to produce another Perl magazine. Jon knew about it when the topic first came up at TPC3, and was quite clear that there was a lot to say about Perl and a lot of different ways to say it (e.g. enough content for TPJ and another magazine to go monthly). Back then, there was room for at least two Perl magazines (so long as they had disjoint missions). In the intervening three years, there have been about 5 projects that I've heard about to produce a magazine of some sort containing Perl content; TPR is the first to actually solve the problem of getting the logistics down to produce a first issue.I don't know any details behind the project (came as a complete surprise to me), but I see this as a knife in the still-healing guts of TPJ.Instead of seeing TPR as the death knell for TPJ, I choose to see it as a positive sign of the continued health and vibrance that is Perl.
