I argue that Perl suffers from "Too much of a good thing."
What evidence of this "suffering" do you see? Are people leaving Perl in favor of languages with fewer options, for that reason? Frankly, I would have left Perl long ago if not for CPAN, and I think CPAN doesn't "suffer" from this condition - it florishes because of it! Perl makes hard jobs easy because we all get together and put our best work on CPAN. If we decided we only wanted X config modules or Y template modules we'd run a very high chance of missing out on something great! Sure, there's a price in user confussion, but I think it's a very small price to pay for the gigantic boon of a healthy, vigorous development pool.
Certainly each option is a good solution for a specific kind of situation, but how do we know *which* module works for *this* solution?
Easily done. Just read Perlmonks - we're all more than happy to state our preferences when we're asking for help or answering questions. Of course that will never be enough to guide your choice alone - you'll have to do research yourself and take risks. Then report back and let us know how it went.
-sam
In reply to Re: On the scaleability of Perl Development Practices
by samtregar
in thread On the scaleability of Perl Development Practices
by jdrago_999
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |