in reply to Re: Re: Re: Handy dandy CPAN pollution
in thread Handy dandy CPAN pollution
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.
|
|---|
| Replies are listed 'Best First'. | |
|---|---|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Handy dandy CPAN pollution
by Tommy (Chaplain) on Dec 29, 2002 at 02:03 UTC | |
by Anonymous Monk on Dec 29, 2002 at 05:55 UTC | |
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Handy dandy CPAN pollution
by Anonymous Monk on Dec 29, 2002 at 06:02 UTC | |
by demerphq (Chancellor) on Jan 07, 2003 at 20:07 UTC | |
by adrianh (Chancellor) on Jan 07, 2003 at 21:53 UTC | |
by demerphq (Chancellor) on Jan 07, 2003 at 22:24 UTC | |
by adrianh (Chancellor) on Jan 08, 2003 at 13:46 UTC |