|
in reply to Re: Distribution of Program and/or Module
in thread Distribution of Program and/or Module
I higly disagree on this, for I believe there should be no ready-to-use scripts on CPAN, but only modules. (CPAN ne hotscripts.com).
I see CPAN more like an IKEA than a Home Depot. It provides you with all the stuff, but you'll have to put it together yourself.
Also I think that good POD (with examples) is worth more than ready-to-go scripts that people don't care to check before running.
--
b10m
All code is usually tested, but rarely trusted.
|
Re^2: Distribution of Program and/or Module
by PodMaster (Abbot) on Mar 11, 2005 at 09:15 UTC
|
So you'd would use Pod::Perldoc; all the time instead of running perldoc?
Didn't think so.
The P in CPAN stands for Perl, not module.
| MJD says "you can't just make shit up and expect the computer to know what you mean, retardo!" | | I run a Win32 PPM repository for perl 5.6.x and 5.8.x -- I take requests (README). | | ** The third rule of perl club is a statement of fact: pod is sexy. |
| [reply]
[d/l] |
Re^2: Distribution of Program and/or Module
by Anonymous Monk on Mar 10, 2005 at 15:04 UTC
|
You know, I was first thinking of IKEA myself as well. But if I buy something from IKEA, say a table, it comes with clear instruction how to assemble that specific table. And I can't use the parts to make something else.
Now, if I get something from CPAN, it's not "ready to assemble to do a specific task". Instead, it may provide some of the functionality you're seeking, but it can also be used to create something else. Ergo, Home Depot, and not IKEA.
And I do think CPAN is for more than modules. Luckely, the maintainers of CPAN think so as well, and named it CPAN, not CPMAN. If it would be just for modules, you wouldn't be able to get the perl sources from CPAN. | [reply] |
|
|
I've only seen limited modules with really poor documentation. Let's, for example, take a look at HTML::TableExtract (yeah, table example ;)
The module clearly is made for a specific goal, to extract data from HTML tables. The POD explains step by step how to set it up. Just like IKEA tables (although I appreciate the quality of HTML::TableExtract more than IKEA tables ;).
IMHO, it'd be quite useless to just put up a ready made script (table) there that will grab info from some website. The POD is like the IKEA manuals, it'll help you set it all up.
I wouldn't miss a night's sleep if CPAN decided to drop the handful of scripts the currently host. There are other sites for that. I firmly believe the Matt's (insert useful thingy here) script days are over. Ready made scripts hardly ever fit in real situations and thus usually need tweaking anyway. Might as well start from scratch. Sourceforge and the before mentioned Hotscripts are better suited places, in my opinion.
--
b10m
All code is usually tested, but rarely trusted.
| [reply] |
|
|
Ready made scripts hardly ever fit in real situations
Scripts are applications. Are you saying there's no market for applications? Modules only appeal to developers, which are just a tiny minority of the computer users.
Anyway, I guess whenever you want to fetch a document using HTTP or FTP (for instance, because you want to read Perlmonks, or you want to download a module), you write a script using LWP::UserAgent. I prefer firefox, wget or GET, ready made applications (and in the case of GET, a perl script) most of the time. I only need LWP::UserAgent if I need to do something special.
I firmly believe the Matt's (insert useful thingy here) script days are over.
I really don't see your point here. Are you saying the "modules on CPAN are wonderful pieces of code - scripts on CPAN are filled with security holes"? Or what? Matt may have written lousy software, but it filled a need. Matt scripts would never had become a problem if there was an alternative. Ready made applications will always be in demand.
Ready made scripts hardly ever fit in real situations and thus usually need tweaking anyway.
Yeah, they are called command line options.
Sourceforge and the before mentioned Hotscripts are better suited places, in my opinion.
Huh? I fail to understand. You make several posts argueing against the idea of having ready made scripts at all, and then at the end, you come two sites that are "better suited places". I don't follow you at all anymore.
| [reply] |
A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.
|
|
|
