Thinking on Talks (parts I & II)

[Simon Wistow]

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

http://perl.plover.com/yak/12views/samples/notes.html#sl-19

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[0]), 
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. 

http://perl.plover.com/yak/12views/samples/notes.html#sl-39

"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."

Simon

[0] Quick question - why are tags likely to work in a generic semantic 
    web when meta keywords failed?

-- 
rorshach and prozac and everything's groovy