Are you complaining that there are no Mail::* modules that follow 100% of the RFCs? Or that 99.9% of the modules on CPAN aren't reliable, secure, etc.? Or both?Both.
But if you're complaining that none of (for example) the Mail::* modules are totally compliant with the RFCs and want to blame someone, blame yourself for expecting the perfect solution for free.So, that's the problem? Money? Ok, no problem. Develop reliable module and sell it to people who need reliable solutions.
But I don't think problem is in money. I think problem is in people's mind. Most people just don't think they should develop reliable software, then think "worksforme" is good enough. And my thesis is: this is terrible! Ok, you CAN develop "worksforme" software for yourself, but don't try to make it public by uploading it to CPAN.
Finally, the requirement that a CPAN module have an intuitive interface escapes me a littleI don't say that. Probably you misread something.
In reply to Re^2: Reliable software OR Is CPAN the sacred cow
by powerman
in thread Reliable software: SOLVED (was: Reliable software OR Is CPAN the sacred cow)
by powerman
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |