"Selling" Perl (i.e. getting the boss to let me install it)

On 2008-09-03 14:57, John Bokma <john@castleamber.com> wrote:
> P B <newsposter625@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>> I'd like to install ActivePerl on a Windows XP machine specifically to
>> run a particular script. The "problem" is that the admins in charge of
>> the PC are very cautious about what is installed and the security
>> implications of everything (as they should be).
>
> You have limited access rights, and Perl will run with your rights. Hence
> it doesn't provide you with any magic.

On the other hand, "Perl will run with your rights" also means "Perl
will run with your full rights". Whatever you can do, any perl script
you execute can do, too.

So for a security-conscious admin that boils down to: "can I trust that
user not to download and execute potentially harmful scripts?" Of course
if an admin lets a user download and run exe files, he shouldn't worry
about perl scripts - the danger is exactly the same.

hp

Willem <willem@stack.nl> wrote:

> John Bokma wrote:
> ) Another thing a lot of editors share is the ability to redefine the
> ) keyboard shortcuts (Although it's something I try to avoid).
>
> Well okay, I'll concede that. But still you have to use key
> combinations (ctrl-this, alt-that, I imagine ?)

Since most editors are mode-less, yes.

> ) Only thing I can think off that requires the mouse in TextPad is
> moving ) the splitter. But I don't mind to move my hands away from the
> keyboard ) now and then, I have no problems with the mouse, and some
> things I do ) faster with it.
>
> Yes, but you have to use the *whole* keyboard, not just the
> alphanumeric bits. That makes a bit of difference.

I've know idea. I have to press Shift now and then as well. Doesn't
bother me that much. I never needed a high typing speed when coding.
Maybe I am a slow coder. Even when writing documentation I don't type
full speed (like for example while chatting, or posting to Usenet).

> )> Vim, on the other hand, is quite different as mentioned before.
> )
> ) I can't see why, or maybe I am too used to vi/vim :-).
>
> Well, there is still the use of easy macro recording, the ease of
> combining almost any edit command with almost any move command, and
> the ease of adding custom scripts. Of course, emacs has the first
> and the last as well, and probably the second too.
> Downside of emacs is escape-meta-alt-control-shift :-P

Emacs is entirely programmable, so if you don't like that, change it. Or
use vile. From what I understand features first in vile made it back to
vi(m).

> In any case, perhaps I could get to comparable speed with another
> editor, but I very much doubt it would take me only a week to do so,
> even if I were to spend the whole week doing nothing but familiarize
> myself with the editor.

I recently changed from a Latin American keyboard back to an US one (in
our house we have like 4 or even 5 different keyboard layouts), and it
took me about a week to get used to it. The two weeks (I think I
mentioned 2) was a guess, based on what I do when working on code. Maybe
I don't use my editors to the fullest, I don't know. But what I do most
while coding is typing characters part of the code.

> I tend to use *a lot* of more powerful
> functionality of vim, learned from years of working with it. Perhaps
> all of that is also available in other editors (although I actually
> doubt all of it is) but that is *a lot* of stuff to relearn.

I am going to use Emacs full time later this month, so maybe I'll come
back on "two weeks". And later on I want to extend my knowledge of vi as
well (I probably am just going to switch to vim for a few months).

--
John http://johnbokma.com/ - Hacking & Hiking in Mexico

Perl help in exchange for a gift:
http://johnbokma.com/perl/help-in-ex...or-a-gift.html