The fact that a program consists of instantiating a single object and calling a single method on it, is not necessarily an indication of the complexity of the program as a whole.

Sorry, but that is simply fatuous pseud-OO.

You pull in nearly 300 modules to do nothing more than: system '/usr/sbin/httpd';

That's not just fatuous, it is moronic.

I truly hope that doesn't offend you, because that is not my intention -- all said and done, it is just the opinion of some obscure Englishman on the net -- but it is my opinion.

You are gaining exactly nothing from your use of OO here; and exactly nothing from your dependency on, and the considerable overheads of, Moose.

It's not even validating your parameter for you. It will happily accept 1234567890 as a string -- as all Perl will.

If App::Reprove consisted of (something like):

package App::Reprove;
use App::Prove;
use LWP::Simpe;
require Exporter;

our @ISA = qw[ Exporter ];
our @EXPORT = qw[ doit ];

sub doit {
    my %arg = @_;
    ## maybe a little validation
    my $file1 = get delete $args{ file1 };
    my $file2 = get delete $args{ file2 };
    ## do whatver you do with the file contents...
    App::Prove->new( %args )->run
}

1;

[download]

It would:

As is, you've got a module that requires users to install a huge crap-load of dependencies only to find -- for 10% of them at least -- that it doesn't work. And probably never will unless 1 or more of the 3 or 4 guys that understand what the **** is going on inside Moose decide to step in and help you out.

I'm pretty damn good at working my way through new modules and working out what is wrong, but with Moose in the picture, I can't even get started.

Quite frankly, I cannot see any merit in your module over using App::Prove myself. But then, I can see no merit in App::Prove over using the prove command directly either. But at least I can look inside the latter and see the value-add -- no matter how tenuous I might think it is -- and can understand the code enough that I could fix any problems that arose. With yours, NADA. Not a hope in hell.

With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

The start of some sanity?

In reply to Re^6: Should I upload it on CPAN? by BrowserUk
in thread Should I upload it on CPAN? by llancet

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.