in reply to Re: Handy dandy CPAN pollution
in thread Handy dandy CPAN pollution

If you want to help the advancement of Perl and CPAN, offer him constructive examples of how something may be written more efficiently.

I did. By pointing to other, much better modules, and by rewriting his code as regexes that are much more efficient than the original code. Doesn't matter much, though. This module simply does not belong on CPAN.

Where the name is concerned: open source project have all kinds of screwy names.

Bizarre names are good. Bizarre namespaces in Perl modules are not (even HandyDandy would have been better than Handy::Dandy.)

It is up to the PAUSE moderators to approve or disapprove name spaces.

PAUSE apparently is not moderated. I have yet to see any sign of that. I'd like strict moderation of CPAN, and I'd like to see my modules in the (still manually maintained) module list, but anyone can upload anything, and module registrations seem to be ignored.

In the comments here, you were quite full of righteousness over the level you've reached here.

Excuse me? The level I have reached on PerlMonks has no meaning at all, anyone can be a saint. That I released a few modules to CPAN also means nothing, anyone can upload modules (as once again made clear). Where do you see me being proud? I'm only proud to not have put my Handy::Dandy-like modules on CPAN. (Yes, of course I wrote code like that too when I began learning Perl. But I never had the guts to release it. That's a good thing, I know now.)

I implore you to stop and think about the best possible solution for an issue and figure out how to reach it without causing conflict.

I already thought about solutions, and asked TOMMY to remove the module from CPAN. It is the best (and in my opinion only) solution to the problem that is Handy::Dandy. I'm not trying to cause any conflict, but it appears the word 'fool' does have that impact. 

- Yes, I reinvent wheels.
- Spam: Visit eurotraQ.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re: Handy dandy CPAN pollution
by Anonymous Monk on Dec 28, 2002 at 09:12 UTC
    I already thought about solutions

    Well, here's your chance to apply them. I assume you'll be more than willing to help him fix it right? You wouldn't just blast someone and then walk away when they request assistance, would you?

    I'm not trying to cause any conflict,

    Read your root post again. If that's not trying to cause conflict (a very bad kind of conflict IMHO) I don't know what is.

    anyone can be a saint.

    Yes, I think you've proven that.

    I'd like strict moderation of CPAN,

    Who's going to do that? How will disputes be resolved? What gives one person the right to prevent another from sharing their code in an open forum like CPAN? If people can't be bothered to do QA on a module before using it, they deserve the consequences.

    I don't buy the "Gives perl a bad name" argument either. What's next? Trying to prevent them from using established protocols to distribute their code?

[reply]

      Well, here's your chance to apply them.

      It's good to see that TOMMY++ asks what we think about it. It appears my post wasn't useless. However, I'm not into OO, and don't think procedural and OO interfaces should be mixed the way OOorNo does. But since it's documented now (that's the way to go, Tommy!), I'll read the documentation to find out how and when the module can be useful. Until then, I'm not able to say anything more about it than I did in my original post in this thread.

      Who's going to do that? How will disputes be resolved? What gives one person the right to prevent another from sharing their code in an open forum like CPAN? If people can't be bothered to do QA on a module before using it, they deserve the consequences.

      A voting or reviewing system on search.cpan.org would be great. Maybe a namespace should be introduced for new modules that haven't been reviewed yet.

      I don't buy the "Gives perl a bad name" argument either. What's next? Trying to prevent them from using established protocols to distribute their code?

      CPAN is one of Perl's strengths. Without CPAN, Perl wouldn't be half as useful as it is now. CPAN is not good because code is shared with it. It is good because good code is shared with it. 

      - Yes, I reinvent wheels.
- Spam: Visit eurotraQ.

[reply]

        It appears my post wasn't useless.

        Well, I don't know if most people would react to it the way I have-- if that's what you mean. But at least I got the wake-up call. It's just not quite as pleasant waking up to a fire alarm as it is waking up to an alarm clock.

        I appreciated your initial comments and critique, though I didn't much appreciate being called names. I'm sorry I provoked that kind of anger. Please excuse my mistake --that goes for everyone. But for good or bad, I'm not sorry for living :o|

        If it's any consolation, perhaps its something to consider that the odds of someone wanting to help rather than hinder are much greater than what may have been suspected. When taking into account that it requires a good-heart and a strong belief in selfless service to others for the benefit of all; a good deal of time and effort outside of life's other duties (like family, paying work); and a noteworthy resolve to go through the process of making a contribution to the CPAN and to the world (_wow_), I think the chances are in our favor that the contributor truly wants to help, to better, to serve, to do good.

        I would like to think that this is true, and my reason for so reasoning: why would I (just one among many) submit to such railing rebuke as that which I've encountered and still want whole-heartedly to do what I set out to do in the first place, to help out at substatial personal sacrifice so people everywhere are a little more happy to use Perl;? If I didn't care about CPAN, Perl, and people, I wouldn't care to persist.

        I think it takes more than a fool to do that, I think it takes at least an ignoramous or a chump or something.

        I'll read the documentation to find out how and when the module can be useful. Until then, I'm not able to say anything more about it than I did in my original post in this thread.

        Thanks for taking the time to do that Juerd. I appreciate it a lot.

        --
Tommy Butler, a.k.a. TOMMY

   Visit the ooOPps! Code Library
   http://ooopps.sourceforge.net/pub

   see if I'm online »http://ooopps.sourceforge.net/online

   ICQ uin: 163915821
   Y! msgr: tommy_the_butler
     email: perlmonks@atrixnet.com
[reply]
        However, I'm not into OO

        If you can criticize any of his code, then you can suggest how to improve it. Whether or not you're "into" OO or not does not reduce your ability to suggest a better regex, data structure, etc.

        It's easy to flame someone's code. I'll be far more impressed if (when?) you help him fix it.

        Maybe a namespace should be introduced for new modules that haven't been reviewed yet.

        This is a good idea. Splitting CPAN into reviewed/non-reviewed modules and displaying only the reviewed by default would be a very good comprimise in my opinion. The questions of who should do these reviews still remains but with a system to address judgements that are perceived unfair, it would probably work out well.

        See what quality of discussion is possible when people are something resembling civil?

[reply]

In Section Meditations