Thinking on Talks (parts I & II)
simon at thegestalt.org
Tue Dec 6 11:00:38 GMT 2005
I had several thunks about talks - the short thunk first
Quite a lot of Perlish talks are actually not Perl specific but could be
applied to programming in general. I'm thinking of parts of Damian's
"Perl best practices", Dave Cross' "Data Munging with Perl" and MJD's
"Red Flags" (as seen at the LPW, folks), "Higher Order Perl" and this
See also Jeff Friedl's "Matsering Regular Expressions". No thoughts
beyond that but I thought it might be worth mentioning.
I also had the idea for talks.perl.org where people could upload all
their slides and notes from wherever they gave them. They could be
viewed by author, date, keywords (or 'tags' in Web2.0 parlance),
event, format etc etc all with a licence attached to them (such as "This
talk may only be given by me", "This talk may be given by someone else
as long as they don't change it" etc etc)
Again, just a thought.
As a side note I saw this and thought of the recent talks about
frameworks. And Howard Hughes.
"Another thing to notice is the little slam against Perl. How did Perl
get involved in this? Da Silva was discussing Awk, not Perl. But the
comp.lang.lisp folks can't stop talking about Perl. They are constantly
talking about Perl. I looked into comp.lang.python to see if it was
similar, and I found out that people in comp.lang.python hardly ever
discuss Perl. I think that shows that comp.lang.lisp is sick and
comp.lang.python is healthy: the Lisp folks are interested in Perl, and
the Python folks are interested in Python."
 Quick question - why are tags likely to work in a generic semantic
web when meta keywords failed?
rorshach and prozac and everything's groovy
More information about the london.pm