So, I have been a Perl believer for many years now - 5 to be exact which may be young for some and old for some. I've been at perlmonks for 3 or 4 years which is young for some and old for some. With my time with Perl and at perlmonks I have gone through the gamut of newbie, learner, teacher, explorer, expounder, and so on. It is safe to say that I will probably not every be listed as elite - or for that matter "saint." However, I can claim to know something of good and bad code. I have done much of bad coding - I can tell when I see it.

I have looked at the treasure trove we call CPAN. I have perused the name spaces. I have read much code. I have even contributed to the code base. I have helped others contribute to the code base. I have used many CPAN modules. I have despised many CPAN modules - well too strong - I have preferred to not have used many CPAN modules. I have contributed bad code myself - known to me only in hindsight. I have contributed good code myself. Though obviously not an expert, I am safe in saying that there are many proverbial "tares" surrounding the "wheat." There is much bad or even worthless code on CPAN (worthless is in the eye of the beholder - one man's trash/junk/whatever is another man's treasure - and nobody would knowingly contribute bad code).

And so after so much rant - the question(s): With good code mingled in with bad code on the system, how can one distinguish between the two? Is there any possibility of a peer review system for modules? Can we list real world working examples? Can we have side-by-side comparisons with comparible modules? Where would we host it and how would we avoid ballot stuffing? Is this even possible?

Fortunately there is a fairly large base to start with in a standard Perl distribution. Outside of that, I have spent plenty of time going through a host of simillary named modules to find one that is intelligently written to handle the majority of the tasks I need - and if it cannot handle all of the tasks - at least is extensible enough to build upon. Many times my efforts have come up fruitless and I've had to re-implement a module. Sometimes I have found a module, used it, and then had to re-implement the module. And other times I have found a stable working module, used it, and gone on to more important tasks.

Is there anyway to simplify the process - or is a halmark of the Perl coder the ability and the requirement to sift through large volumes of contributed code? Obviously, there is always a need to review the code you use for safety - but can we streamline or thin the number of choices down? Or is a large number choices simply the benefit and detriment of open source?

my @a=qw(random brilliant braindead); print $a[rand(@a)];

In reply to Tried and True CPAN Modules by Rhandom

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.