Re^2: Follow up to RFC: Templating without a System

I would like if you provided me some clue as to how home-grown and not home-grown modules differ.

Didn't HTML::Template start as something home-grown in the first place? Or was it the perl community that requested the author to write it?

Or do you differ by perl professionals that write such in their shop compared with random perl hackers writing stuff?

...after you stop maintain it

Erm, first I've got to finish it and see if it makes it's way to CPAN - which I doubt, as for me; there are many people out there that are better in writing such a thing as I myself. But I think it should be done.

--shmem

_($_=" "x(1<<5)."?\n".q·/)Oo.  G°\        /
                              /\_¯/(q    /
----------------------------  \__(m.====·.(_("always off the crowd"))."·
");sub _{s./.($e="'Itrs `mnsgdq Gdbj O`qkdq")=~y/"-y/#-z/;$e.e && print}

Comment on Re^2: Follow up to RFC: Templating without a System

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Follow up to RFC: Templating without a System by Ieronim (Friar) on Jul 01, 2006 at 16:20 UTC
The only criterion to call the module "not home-grown" is the number of people have chosen it :) I'll try to explain my idea. Of course modules (in general) are written by random perl hackers ;) And at the start of the way all CPAN modules are home-grown — and your module too, if it becomes availible to CPAN. But then modules that do popular tasks become popular. I'll call it the community proof. When many peole use the code, they definitely find some odds and bugs. Then the author of the module fixes it — or not. In the second case the usage of the module usually stops. But if everything is OK, after some cycles of bug finding and fixing the module becomes community-grown. And I prefer community-grown modules to home-grown, of course :) I think it's obvious :)	[reply]
A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.