Speaking as a BioPerl core developer, I agree on a few points, in particular some of the over-engineered bits (and its Java influence). BioPerl classes designed 10 years ago are simply not easily capable of dealing with modern analyses for anything large scale.
However, I do wish that anyone who has complaints re: BioPerl would seriously consider helping to fix some of these problems, or at least offer suggestions; we're pretty short-handed. In an effort to make contributing easier, we've moved to GitHub (so anyone can fork the code), we're pushing out the last monolithic release soon (1.6.2), and we're about to undergo a major core reshuffling to modularize classes, so now's a good time to indicate areas that need improvement. A ground-up re-implementation isn't out of the question either, but I think we have to consider the problems with just tossing out everything and starting from scratch.
BTW, I know you don't believe in Modern Perl tools, but I do. I happen to have a test project using Moose to re-implement many BioPerl interface classes as Roles, as well as identify areas that need refactoring or simplification. I was pleasantly surprised to see a modest speedup just with Roles alone, so I think it's worth looking into.
In reply to Re^4: Putting Perl Back on Top in the Fields of Scientific and Financial Computing
by cjfields
in thread Putting Perl Back on Top in the Fields of Scientific and Financial Computing
by hermida
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |