Module::Starter has a good pass record, good reviews, a fairly small bug list and is comfortingly unambitious. What is there not to like? I wasn't complaining about Module::Starter per se but rather that modules that have not been derived from it.

I had a very brief look at Dist::Zilla. It fails to sell itself to me (perhaps they need to hire a copywriter). In particular it clearly attempts to be a much more comprehensive system than Module::Starter. If they succeed this is of course a virtue, but I am just left with an aching feeling that is bound to incompatible with me somewhere.

My approach at the moment is to identify where I am wasting time and find a solution - one problem at a time. I'm happy to write or partly write some stuff myself, but obviously I come to CPAN first. One problem at a time seems a more robust approach than trying to find a one stop shop.

In the end Dist::Zilla doesn't need a copywriter because it's not trying to sell itself to anyone. Its main virtue, in my eyes, is being useful to me. If other people get mileage out of it, that's cool, too.

As for the "dzil new" command, which is the "Module-Starter-like" bit, it's very young. I think it's also very good and has a lot of promise, but its main form of documentation right now is a screenshot of it getting used in my blog. The explanation for this isn't interesting to many people, and goes something like, "documenting it before the global config subsystem that will enhance it is complete would be a waste of time because of the changes to docs that it would require later."

That said, if you stop by irc.perl.org #distzilla, there are almost always people there who can help you use it. I think you will find it much more flexible than Module::Starter, which was very hard to extend as time went on. Its that technical inflexibility that led me, in part, to stop using it.

rjbs

I had a very brief look at Dist::Zilla. It fails to sell itself to me (perhaps they need to hire a copywriter).

That's one of my irks about Ricardo Signes. Most of his modules are DEEPLY underdocumented and it's not always clear what practical use they have. But I'm speaking as the general public. Ricardo rolls deep on irc.perl.org in #moose with all the heavy hitters. They work around the clock as a dedicated pack of hackers in a cooperative non-elitist fashion.

When he puts out a module its because that pack of hackers COLLECTIVELY see it as a best of breed choice having surveyed everything out there.

In particular it clearly attempts to be a much more comprehensive system than Module::Starter. If they succeed this is of course a virtue, but I am just left with an aching feeling that is bound to incompatible with me somewhere.

Yes, I agree. I still use Module::Starter myself. But if you join the IRC channels and chat them up, they will be glad to discuss their aims and bring you in to submit patches, etc. And also why they started a new project instead of extending Andy's.




The mantra of every experienced web application developer is the same: thou shalt separate business logic from display. Ironically, almost all template engines allow violation of this separation principle, which is the very impetus for HTML template engine development.

-- Terence Parr, "Enforcing Strict Model View Separation in Template Engines"

But if you join the IRC channels and chat them up, they will be glad to discuss their aims and bring you in to submit patches, etc. And also why they started a new project instead of extending Andy's.

Not sure what your meaning is here. Are you saying I'm not open to patches and ideas?

xoxo,
Andy

That's one of my irks about Ricardo Signes. Most of his modules are DEEPLY underdocumented and it's not always clear what practical use they have.

What do you mean "under documented"? The documentation is in the code and I was reading it just now -- albeit with "-d" flag. Mind you Module::Starter::Plugin::TT2 has some worrying meta data fields like author and so on that have "%" in them.