From my point of view, the question is contextual.

If I were developing for some sort of embedded system, my definition of minimal would be different than it would be if I were developing on a web based application that was going to be run across a cluster of servers. Minimalism seems to me to be a balance between the capabilities and capacity of the:

Perhaps one could come up with categories of minimalist Perls for a broad range of general application environments? I guess maybe this is what you are referring to.

It seems to me that the nature of the evolution of Perl, of Perl itself, its use, and even more so, the development of modules in various repositories (botfx in Re: Perl::Minimal -- the good, bad, and the ugly...) sort of belies an attempt at a 'single' definition of minimalism. botfx refers to the inclusion of certain modules in Core as 'bloat' and that seems a fair assessment. Perl itself has become such a capable tool because of the rather broad range of contributors and its breadth and depth of application. I suppose the maintainers of Core get the final choice of what goes into it.

The idea of defining those 'minimalist' sets is an interesting one. Would something like that lead to a fragmentation of Perl interest I wonder? Would this then imply that a sub-level of maintainers would keep the various Core categories maintained?

...but maybe I am taking this out of context or mis-understanding the intent? If not, I do like the idea... It would not be all that different than the way Linux distro's package up in their own way Perl(and everything else), other than one would go direct to the source to get that 'tuned' Core that they want. PerlBrew would become even more valuable as a tool I would think...

...the majority is always wrong, and always the last to know about it...

Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results...

A solution is nothing more than a clearly stated problem...otherwise, the problem is not a problem, it is a facct

wjw

In reply to Re: Perl::Minimal -- the good, bad, and the ugly... by wjw
in thread Perl::Minimal -- the good, bad, and the ugly... by taint

Title:
Use:  <p> text here (a paragraph) </p>
and:  <code> code here </code>
to format your post, it's "PerlMonks-approved HTML":


  • Posts are HTML formatted. Put <p> </p> tags around your paragraphs. Put <code> </code> tags around your code and data!
  • Titles consisting of a single word are discouraged, and in most cases are disallowed outright.
  • Read Where should I post X? if you're not absolutely sure you're posting in the right place.
  • Please read these before you post! —
  • Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags:
    a, abbr, b, big, blockquote, br, caption, center, col, colgroup, dd, del, details, div, dl, dt, em, font, h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, hr, i, ins, li, ol, p, pre, readmore, small, span, spoiler, strike, strong, sub, summary, sup, table, tbody, td, tfoot, th, thead, tr, tt, u, ul, wbr
  • You may need to use entities for some characters, as follows. (Exception: Within code tags, you can put the characters literally.)
            For:     Use:
    & &amp;
    < &lt;
    > &gt;
    [ &#91;
    ] &#93;
  • Link using PerlMonks shortcuts! What shortcuts can I use for linking?
  • See Writeup Formatting Tips and other pages linked from there for more info.