CMP decided to stop publishing The Perl Journal, which they has recently moved to a completely HTML form.
I'll certainly miss TPJ. Jon published my first two Perl articles, and the magazine certainly did a lot for the community.
Re:Where's da content?
brian_d_foy on 2006-04-13T19:45:48
I think you have to go over to the DDJ area and look in the archives. Everything got moved over so that TPJ doesn't really exist as a name anymore.
The links to the articles I wrote (and have on my website still work, but they redirect to a DDJ address.
Re:Where's da content?
sciurius on 2006-04-14T10:24:06
Could they be persuaded to donate the contents to us?Re:Where's da content?
guthrie on 2006-06-28T19:07:55
i looked there, and they say "archives here", but... none.
http://www.ddj.com/dept/lightlang/tpj.jhtml
Re:I paid it...
shild on 2006-04-14T15:44:14
..as did I, but I did visit the web page. That is how I found out TPJ was dead.:-)
Re:Total Communication Failure
brian_d_foy on 2006-04-13T22:34:40
Heh, I might be paying for Perl articles if I can get enough scratch when TPR gets a little bit past breaking even. Of course, there is still Perl.com, but you already know about that.:)
DDJ says they are still going to buy Perl articles, but that their budget is done across the board. They have to spread that out over all "lightweight languages" (whatever that means) I pretty much knew this was coming from talking to my editor over there.Re:Total Communication Failure
sigzero on 2006-04-14T12:31:36
I imagine by lightweight they mean Perl, Ruby, Tcl, PHP and the like.
Re:Total Communication Failure
brian_d_foy on 2006-04-14T15:17:51
I know what they are including in the group, but I can't figure out how the term "lightweight" figures into any of it.Re:Total Communication Failure
sigzero on 2006-04-14T16:28:57
I am not sure "how" they would classify but I am sure anything in the scripting realm would be lightweight.
Re:Total Communication Failure
brian_d_foy on 2006-04-14T17:53:56
What's your definition of "lightweight" then? I can't really think of any common definition that applies.
These languages tend to be semantically and syntactically more complex and take up more resources than other languages. They are also more powerful and expressive. There's really nothing light about them.
In keeping with the spirit of the word "lightweight", the language would probably need to be confined in scope and restricted in syntax. It wouldn't be a general purpose programming language, either, since that brings a lot of baggage with it.Re:Total Communication Failure
Marza on 2006-04-14T22:57:12
Isn't Dobbs main focus on C and C++?
I am known a few C/C++ that view Perl as as lightweight language.
I guess it's a case of Language Religion?
However, I kind of figured TPJ was going to go belly up when I heard Dobbs bought them. Didn't seem like a good fit to me.
Oh well time to buy TPR;) Come to think of it I think my subscription died..... Re:Total Communication Failure
brian_d_foy on 2006-04-15T00:18:07
Well, TPJ was hurting a long time before CMP got involved. They made a valiant effort (no, really, they did) to keep it alive. It lasted much longer than it should have thanks to them.
However, I found their site difficult to access, particularly when they changed their logon procedures. So I hadn't consulted it in many months.
I like getting the Perl Review in hard-copy in part because all I have to do to access it is open my mailbox
Fan of Dead Trees Format (/me ducks)
