in reply to Alternatives to Module::Starter

I've both used module-starter, and have copied the files from another project, and substituted the name and version.

Both work fine, though Module::Starter was a bit nicer to use.

Why is module-starter so complex?

As a user, this question doesn't bother me. I don't find it complex to use. As long as it's maintained, why bother about internal complexity?

Why is module-starter so inflexible?

That doesn't bother me either. I don't need more flexibility from it.

Why does Module::Starter do so little?

Because otherwise it would be even more complex? Again, it does enough for me.

So, after reading your questions, is the starting of modules an actual concern of yours? How often do you start a new module?

I don't want to discourage you from improving things, but from our CB discussions I get the impression that you often get stuck in small details that wouldn't bother me for more than a minute. If you draw satisfaction from that style of development, then you're fine. I know I enjoy getting results much more than beating small points to death.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Alternatives to Module::Starter
by Xiong (Hermit) on Jan 15, 2012 at 11:22 UTC

    I'm working on a separate project, a Module::Build subclass I expect, which will, during development, pretty well screw up any project upon which it's tested. I'll want to create a wide variety of dummy projects quickly.

    I do agree that I tend to focus on details. As I've retired from engineering for pay, I enjoy the luxury of perfectionism free from money and time constraints. I highly appreciate elegant tools, of which I'm sorry to say I don't consider the topic of this post an example. My entire effort in Perl thus far has been tool development. Please accept my promise that something, eventually, will roll out the door.

    I'm not the guy you kill, I'm the guy you buy. —Michael Clayton

      Module::Build comes with a pretty extensive collection of test cases. If you ensure that your Module::Build subclass is still able to pass all those tests (except any tests that check for behaviour you are deliberately changing with your subclass), then that's probably a good start.