uutraffic report (in perl)

[J Greely]

In article <14949 at bfmny0.UU.NET> tneff at bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) writes:
>I'm going to try and pick out the constructive dialog here, although I
>usually prefer to let postings like this one speak for themselves...

...pass the hair shirt, I've been chastised.  I don't use third
person, I lapse into childishness (what was it that you deleted,
anyway?), and I don't agree with Tom (Neff, that is; at least one
other Tom out there liked it).


>In article <JGREELY.89Nov22100225 at oz.cis.ohio-state.edu> J Greely
> <jgreely at cis.ohio-state.edu> writes:
>>Actually, I've seen several, only one of which was written here.  All
>>written in that peculiar combination of awk, sed, grep, join, sort,
>>and <insert shell here>, 

>It's not a peculiar combination, it's using tools under shell, which is
>how UNIX works.  That's what they're there for.

Uh, when a line contains two awk's (one in backquotes), a grep, a
join, two sorts, and a "uniq -c" (piped into more), I call it
peculiar.  It may also be creative and elegant, but it *is* peculiar.
Yes, I *know* that's what they're for; I'm just not sold on the idea
that you should always use them.

>My point is that while Perl does this as well as anyone, the resulting
>behemoth is less well suited for use AS A TOOL ITSELF than the more
>familiar ones.

If your point (and I'll discuss the use of second person in a bit) is
that Perl is not optimized for existing in the middle of a pipeline
(if that's suitable as an operational definition of "tool" in this
context), my response is a quiet "so what?".  I've already mentioned
that I still use standard Unix tools for small tasks.  *I've* never
said that Perl replaces them for all uses.

>  It's like Bloomingdale's -- a truly magnificent department store
>where you can spend a whole day shopping and find anything imaginable,
>but just try and dash in to get a quick pair of socks!! :-)

(how come my digressions are childish, and his are funny?)

>Meta-peeve!: why don't posters address the argument rather than aiming
>the second person at some individual arguer?  News is not mail...  sigh

Tom (direct address), the use of third person in a follow-up article
does not jump out as more correct.  Mail is talking to you on the
phone; news is talking to you on a party line.  In both cases, I am
addressing my responses to your statements.  The fact that others are
listening in (and possibly commenting) does not change the fact that
I'm talking to you.  Why not in mail?  You're raising points in public
that I'm trying to address.  Taking it to mail doesn't do anything for
others who may be interested in the arguments on both sides.

>>Huh?  I'll overlook the personification of the enemy for the moment,
>                                                ^^^^^
>There is no 'enemy' here.

Clarification for the humor impaired:
	:-)

>The above quoted poster either didn't strip his object
>or has a more space hungry compiler in general.

You're quite right.  Running strip brings it down to 32K.  My mistake.

>Since this is mail :-), no *I* didn't understand the way ***->YOU<-***
>phrased +--==<<YOUR>>==--+ sentence, which didn't say 'ignore'.

"cut to the heart...perform a triple bypass".  Seemed fairly
straightforward to me.  Perhaps whimsy isn't universal, after all.
-=-
J Greely (jgreely at cis.ohio-state.edu; osu-cis!jgreely)