RSS/Atom feed?

Does progrider have something like this?

http://dis.4chan.org/atom/prog

I prefer molecule feed.

Time to hit the tables and make a feature request:
http://tablecat.ipyo.heliohost.org/perl/

Not that it's guaranteed to be implemented.

>>1
https://bbs.progrider.org/prog/all

And, did they fucking finally implement an atom feed? Oh well, who cares. Image Captcha is still a big sell off point.

Not bad, not bad:
http://dis.4chan.org/atom/sjis/

I'm glad that someone is paying attention to /prog/. It'll never return to what it was but at least it'll continue to live in some way. Even if it is just lovable human-powered-spam-san, cudder-sama, and drifters from /g/.

I can implement this if there is enough demand. One of the modifications I made initially to make this software usable was a file that contains a list of all posts along with a timestamp in chronological order.

No real promises of anything though. I don't really like writing Perl. I could also perhaps just expose that file and you can sqlite it or something.

>>7
I'd use it, but it's fine if you don't want to do it.

>>7

If you could whip it up, I'd be grateful!

>>7

I don't really like writing Perl

Why not? What scripting languages do you like working with? I mean actual scripting languages like perl, python, ruby... Dont't say CLISP or some shit.

>>10
https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&q=problems%20with%20perl
Mostly regex hell.

mawk, mksh, scheme, CL, Forth, Lua.

And don't give the whole, "Oh, but you should be using strict." You would need to in the first place if you horde all forms of expression into a language. A bastard blob of over engineering.

>>10
Scheme. Although, I mostly just use C. I'm at a level in C where it is easier and quicker to whip up something in C, using my own libraries that I've developed over years. I'd rather not than deal with the flawed runtimes and environments of most scripting languages, constantly having to look up functions and syntax if I'm reading the code of others because their breadth of scope is needlessly immense though to poor design.

I've written my own interpreter for Scheme (in C), and an variety of interfaces to the OS that I can call through Scheme that fit my needs.

I would suggest you look at the source of this BBS (http://progrider.org/files/tablecat-bbs-20111214.tar.gz) to see why I would rather not touch it. I have made a few modifications and it was painful. It is not made with extensibility in mind, it's mostly messy regex. I think the author wants to keep it simplistic, and so he has restricted himself heavily in what he uses for implementation, leading to the above.

Python, Perl, and Ruby are easy enough that I can muster through them without too much trouble, but it is a hassle and I'd rather use nothing outside of C and Scheme when on my own time. While Python's "best practices" syntax is revolting, Perl has the potential to be absolutely horrifying, and much of the style used for this BBS fits under that category. Not to detriment or insult tablecat or his choices in any way, he's picked a design goal and stuck to it, it just so happens that his choice makes it difficult for anyone else to figure out what is going in throughout many parts of the code, or god forbid change or extend it.

The use of tablecat's software was initially temporary, I had plans to switch this out with something else, perhaps written in Scheme or anything that isn't Perl, Ruby or Python, but I've undertaken something recently that causes me to have little free time. As a result, we are now slaves to tablecat and his BBS, forever trapped, toiling through the land of legacy, haphazard patching, and modification. Well, at least until I am bored one day and have enough time to write something that extracts all the posts and throws them into an sqlite db, building a better BBS around that.

Though, you are all welcome to write extensions and submit them to me, make a thread, I will gladly include them. This is a board for programmers, after all. If you've got time to post about your valuation of scripting languages, then you should have time to make write some simple perl modules. I'll meet you halfway and integrate them. Feel free.

But you should be using strict. The only case where you wouldn't is if you were running a couple line script from the terminal. Don't blame perl for giving you the option of making your code look like shit. It can easily be made to look better; you chose not to because you wanted to save some keystrokes or you didn't know any better. Wall even built the language around the philosophy "there a million ways to write the program, pick the one that is most readable. You can just as easily make C code look like shit with function pointer abuse and all sorts of other shit. Perl at least has propper lexical scoping and serves a damn good purpose. There is a reason this site is written in it instead of mawk, scheme, and Lua.

And I can't believe you said lua. Lua is sepples tier.

Don't blame perl for giving you the option of making your code look like shit.

That's the entire fucking point:

You [sh/]would [not] need [an interpreter for every god damn language expression in the universe] in the first place if simple verbs are made in a language's grammar. [Perl has, will always be a] bastard blob of over engineering.

Functional programming, and expressions in lambda, simplifies most of the complexity in convey abstract executions that can be modularized.

IDGI: The symbolic expressions in Lisp and children, solved the complexity of express ideas that a computer needs to execute, in a manner humans can read.

you chose not to because you wanted to save some keystrokes or you didn't know any better.

Are you speaking with your god or something? I know how to write code, so that when I look back on it 10 years later, I can not only understand it, but relearn it by reading it, and any kid that takes my place can too.

"there a million ways to write the program, pick the one that is most readable.

You love to misinform, don't you, kid?:

Although the Perl Slogan is There's More Than One Way to Do It, I hesitate to make 10 ways to do something.
Usenet article <9682@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV> (1990)

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Larry_Wall

You can just as easily make C code look like shit

And I brought C into the conversation⸮ Lame diversion tactic.

Perl at least has propper lexical scoping

Proper, LOL:
http://perldoc.perl.org/perlfaq7.html#What%27s-the-difference-between-dynamic-and-lexical-%28static%29-scoping%3f-Between-local%28%29-and-my%28%29%3f
http://www.perl.com/pub/2002/05/14/mod_perl.html
http://rjbs.manxome.org/rubric/entry/2018

and serves a damn good purpose.

Yeah, confusion, since you can change your scope on the fly! How secure my system will be[i]![/i]

There is a reason this site is written in it instead of

Yeah, we needed something quick so we can talk to each other while engineer on our spare time something better. Not that it is safe, solid, and robust in anyway, child.

And I can't believe you said lua.

It's what the kids use, and what is cheap to deploy from C Bachelors. Better than Csh, TCL, and Perl any day. But I personally do not mind the usage of PCRE.

>>14
I immediately recognized you as the guy who goes into every thread and calls everyone he disagrees with a child or kid. Take a look at yourself. And are you seriously turning this into a functional programming debate? That's part of your reasoning for perl's pitfalls? It's not functional? What a silly person who criticizes something for not being something it was never intended to be.

My quote was off, but yours is irrelevant.

Perl is designed to give you several ways to do anything, so consider picking the most readable one.

From the perl man page. The point stands. Most of the criticism on perl code is regarding code that wasn't written well in the first place.

Your links to the scoping discussion didn't refute the fact that perl does have lexical scoping.

Yeah, confusion, since you can change your scope on the fly! How secure my system will be[i]![/i]

Again, you seem to revolve your argument around this idea that if you CAN make your code to look or behave bad, then the language in which it was written in was bad as well. You can do this with any language.

And I brought C into the conversation⸮ Lame diversion tactic.

Way to miss the point. The point being, if something like C (which is void of all the ``features'' that something like C++ and Java has) can be made to look bad, anything can.

Yeah, we needed something quick so we can talk to each other while engineer on our spare time something better.

And this is a great reason to use perl. Anyone knowledgeable in it can cut projects down into a tiny fraction. There are applications where the tradeoffs are definitely worth it.

Defending Lua doesn't help you. Lua has such simple fundamental problems that I'm shocked to find anyone writing code in it.
It's one based
Variables are global by default
assignments don't return anything (this one really is crippling for the purpose lua is trying to serve)

I maintain, Perl is much better than the alternatives in its' class (Python, Ruby, Lua, etc.)

You people gotta be _K^I_D^D_I^N_G me !

>>15
Yeah, your point still stands, you can write a mess in any way, because it allows you. You are only proving the point that Perl is a gateway to badly written code.

No, the links point out how messy and unsafe evaluation of lexical scope is. Can you read implications in text, or not?

Certainly, anyone can write bad code in any language. The problem is allowing it in its grammar. Perl just ask for it, esp. in its lexical scope functions.

I didn't miss the point, I am just seeing the C introduction as a lame diversion tactic. Would you like to code in APL? How about PHP? The same thing can be said about Perl, the grammar rules in the language inherit the sort of diction the writer will expose. Why do you think there's SOOO much ``poorly'' written Perl code, when compared to other languages? Why is it that hackers, not caring about purity in language, still call it a bane of programming? Think more abstractly than religiously exemplifying perl with bad coders. Heck, here is an exercise: why does perl, if perfect and great, still attract so much bad code, or coder⸮ Think about it. Now use Natural languages as an example. Why is it harder for an native English man to learn English, when compared to a Foreigner⸮ Think about it.

Anyone knowledgeable in it can cut projects down into a tiny fraction.

Be serious. ANYONE CAN USE ANY INTERPRETED LANGUAGE WITH OUR 1GHz+ PROCESSORS, and still pay only a tiny fraction of cycles. And even still

There are applications where the tradeoffs are definitely worth it.

This axiom works everywhere. Thanks for reading from the Perl evangelism handbook, in the section of winning an argument through generalized statements. I guess that is why duck tape is used everywhere, when we only needed a hammer.

Defending Lua doesn't help you.

God. Now your looking for the fifth leg in the conversation.
I KNOW LUA DOES NOT HELP ANYONE, LIKE PERL, APL, FIoC, RUBY (cute syntax btw), etc. I ONLY USE IT BECAUSE THE KIDS ONLY KNOW ALGOL SYNTAX. IF THE KIDS CAN LEARN SYMBOLIC EXPRESSION CHEAPLY AND QUICKLY, WE WOULD BE USING OTHER LANGUAGES.

NOW, WHEN DID YOU READ ME RECOMMEND LUA? AH, I DIDN'T. SO DO WE NEED TO DISCUSS WHY LUA IS AWFUL? SO SHOULD I GO ON AND BASH HIS USE OF LUA, BECAUSE HE DIDN'T RECOMMEND OTHER LANGUAGES, MORE SUITABLE TO THE TASK OF INTERPRETED LANGUAGES, AND HUMAN READABILITY.

I maintain, Perl is much better than the alternatives in its' class (Python, Ruby, Lua, etc.)

Exercise, proof it.

someone is mad

>>17
I suppose you believe Scheme doesn't allow you to write messy code, huh?

>>19
To quote >>17

Certainly, anyone can write bad code in any language. The problem is allowing it in its grammar.

you can write a mess in any way, because it allows you

This is the dumb part of the post. You can write messy code in many ways because there are many different ways to write code in Perl. Why does this make scheme so great? Because you can only make ugly code a few different ways? Exactly because in Scheme you can only code in a few ways.

Evidently, programming languages with options are inherently bad.

Include options for dubs

delete /meta/