Choose ones that have been recently updated, or are in higher versions, as they generally are better maintained and more developed
That's quite a bold statement. Lots of activity may also be a sign of a high bug rate, or creature feep. "High" versions numbers are an even less useful indication. Is PHP an on par choice to Perl because both have (major) version number 5? Will PHP become a better choice if they declare their 6.0 to be ready before Perl does?
If you can use modules which have been assimilated into the core release, this is often good too, because they are stable and well tested
So you hope. That's only true for part of the modules in the core. Many "core" modules are "dual released" - the modules are found on CPAN, maintained (or not...) by someone other than p5p, and are just synced with the latest CPAN version before a Perl release. Inclusion in the core doesn't mean more than that someone in the past thought it was a good idea. And once there, it'll be there forever. Witness modules like CGI and Text::Soundex.
| [reply] |
| [reply] |
As others have said, the version numbers or age of last release can be misleading. I'd suggest you look at the RT via search.cpan.com and see whether there are long unattended bug reports (bad) and whether there are any closed bug reports. If there are no, either it had always been so good that there was no need or no one uses the module. Hard to say which.
I would also place the "Look around" quite a bit higher in the list. The ratings are not used enough to actually be a good indicator of module quality.
Jenda
Enoch was right!
Enjoy the last years of Rome.
| [reply] |