Re: perl4 vs. perl5

> "Peter" == Peter Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Peter> Slap all that into a PowerPoint presentation and you're done :-) Beware the antipower of Powerpoint: -- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 <[EMAIL PROT

RE: perl4 vs. perl5

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jensen Kenneth B Sra Afpc/Dpdmpq) writes: >Little more background,... I just PCS'd to this organization last September, >coming from a previous assignment where the systems were actually up to date >(kind of, purl 5.6.1) . Started learning the sys

RE: perl4 vs. perl5

/updated in 10-15 years. -Original Message- From: Brent Michalski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 1:43 PM To: Jensen Kenneth B SrA AFPC/DPDMPQ Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: perl4 vs. perl5 Ken, The fact that our military is still using something THAT a

Re: perl4 vs. perl5

Ken, The fact that our military is still using something THAT antiquated and bug riddled is embarassing. I realize that for many things, cost is involved and it makes it harder to push through. Perl is free! Although if the A.F. wishes, I'd be happy to install it for them for a whole lotta mon

Re: perl4 vs. perl5

First I thought this message must have got here through some time warp. I remember seeing similar five years ago and even then the responses were "oh my god, someone is still using THAT???" :-) From: Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Despite being a .0 release, 5.8.0 has proved remarkably robus

Re: perl4 vs. perl5

On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 12:52:13PM -0600, Jensen Kenneth B SrA AFPC/DPDMPQ wrote: > I am trying to justify to my sys admin office reasons to upgrade our > archaic systems from perl4 (4.0.1.8) to at the very least perl 5.004. Wow! That brings back memories. 4.018 is over 11 years old. By the w