So, I have been a Perl believer for many years now - 5 to be exact which may be young for some and old for some. I've been at perlmonks for 3 or 4 years which is young for some and old for some. With my time with Perl and at perlmonks I have gone through the gamut of newbie, learner, teacher, explorer, expounder, and so on. It is safe to say that I will probably not every be listed as elite - or for that matter "saint." However, I can claim to know something of good and bad code. I have done much of bad coding - I can tell when I see it.
I have looked at the treasure trove we call CPAN. I have perused the name spaces. I have read much code. I have even contributed to the code base. I have helped others contribute to the code base. I have used many CPAN modules. I have despised many CPAN modules - well too strong - I have preferred to not have used many CPAN modules. I have contributed bad code myself - known to me only in hindsight. I have contributed good code myself. Though obviously not an expert, I am safe in saying that there are many proverbial "tares" surrounding the "wheat." There is much bad or even worthless code on CPAN (worthless is in the eye of the beholder - one man's trash/junk/whatever is another man's treasure - and nobody would knowingly contribute bad code).
And so after so much rant - the question(s): With good code mingled in with bad code on the system, how can one distinguish between the two? Is there any possibility of a peer review system for modules? Can we list real world working examples? Can we have side-by-side comparisons with comparible modules? Where would we host it and how would we avoid ballot stuffing? Is this even possible?
Fortunately there is a fairly large base to start with in a standard Perl distribution. Outside of that, I have spent plenty of time going through a host of simillary named modules to find one that is intelligently written to handle the majority of the tasks I need - and if it cannot handle all of the tasks - at least is extensible enough to build upon. Many times my efforts have come up fruitless and I've had to re-implement a module. Sometimes I have found a module, used it, and then had to re-implement the module. And other times I have found a stable working module, used it, and gone on to more important tasks.
Is there anyway to simplify the process - or is a halmark of the Perl coder the ability and the requirement to sift through large volumes of contributed code? Obviously, there is always a need to review the code you use for safety - but can we streamline or thin the number of choices down? Or is a large number choices simply the benefit and detriment of open source?
my @a=qw(random brilliant braindead); print $a[rand(@a)];
I have looked at the treasure trove we call CPAN. I have perused the name spaces. I have read much code. I have even contributed to the code base. I have helped others contribute to the code base. I have used many CPAN modules. I have despised many CPAN modules - well too strong - I have preferred to not have used many CPAN modules. I have contributed bad code myself - known to me only in hindsight. I have contributed good code myself. Though obviously not an expert, I am safe in saying that there are many proverbial "tares" surrounding the "wheat." There is much bad or even worthless code on CPAN (worthless is in the eye of the beholder - one man's trash/junk/whatever is another man's treasure - and nobody would knowingly contribute bad code).
And so after so much rant - the question(s): With good code mingled in with bad code on the system, how can one distinguish between the two? Is there any possibility of a peer review system for modules? Can we list real world working examples? Can we have side-by-side comparisons with comparible modules? Where would we host it and how would we avoid ballot stuffing? Is this even possible?
Fortunately there is a fairly large base to start with in a standard Perl distribution. Outside of that, I have spent plenty of time going through a host of simillary named modules to find one that is intelligently written to handle the majority of the tasks I need - and if it cannot handle all of the tasks - at least is extensible enough to build upon. Many times my efforts have come up fruitless and I've had to re-implement a module. Sometimes I have found a module, used it, and then had to re-implement the module. And other times I have found a stable working module, used it, and gone on to more important tasks.
Is there anyway to simplify the process - or is a halmark of the Perl coder the ability and the requirement to sift through large volumes of contributed code? Obviously, there is always a need to review the code you use for safety - but can we streamline or thin the number of choices down? Or is a large number choices simply the benefit and detriment of open source?
my @a=qw(random brilliant braindead); print $a[rand(@a)];
|
---|
Replies are listed 'Best First'. | |
---|---|
Re: Tried and True CPAN Modules
by perrin (Chancellor) on Jul 17, 2003 at 17:39 UTC | |
Re: Tried and True CPAN Modules
by simonm (Vicar) on Jul 17, 2003 at 17:12 UTC | |
by Rhandom (Curate) on Jul 17, 2003 at 17:57 UTC | |
Re: Tried and True CPAN Modules
by dragonchild (Archbishop) on Jul 17, 2003 at 17:11 UTC | |
by Rhandom (Curate) on Jul 17, 2003 at 17:52 UTC | |
by dragonchild (Archbishop) on Jul 17, 2003 at 18:06 UTC | |
by Rhandom (Curate) on Jul 17, 2003 at 18:31 UTC | |
by dragonchild (Archbishop) on Jul 17, 2003 at 18:34 UTC | |
by mojotoad (Monsignor) on Jul 19, 2003 at 15:12 UTC | |
by Rhandom (Curate) on Jul 17, 2003 at 18:21 UTC | |
Re: Tried and True CPAN Modules
by ajdelore (Pilgrim) on Jul 17, 2003 at 20:30 UTC | |
by Abigail-II (Bishop) on Jul 17, 2003 at 22:20 UTC | |
Re: Tried and True CPAN Modules
by lachoy (Parson) on Jul 18, 2003 at 01:56 UTC | |
by smalhotra (Scribe) on Jul 18, 2003 at 12:38 UTC | |
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Jul 19, 2003 at 15:56 UTC | |
by tilly (Archbishop) on Jul 19, 2003 at 18:17 UTC | |
by zby (Vicar) on Jul 21, 2003 at 12:38 UTC | |
Re: Tried and True CPAN Modules
by artist (Parson) on Jul 17, 2003 at 19:12 UTC | |
Re: Tried and True CPAN Modules
by hsmyers (Canon) on Jul 17, 2003 at 19:42 UTC | |
Re: Tried and True CPAN Modules
by Anonymous Monk on Jul 17, 2003 at 20:15 UTC | |
Re: Tried and True CPAN Modules
by chunlou (Curate) on Jul 17, 2003 at 20:36 UTC | |
A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in. |
Back to
Meditations