good chemistry is complicated, and a little bit messy -LW |
|
PerlMonks |
Re^3: The Bad, the Ugly, and the Good of autovivificationby ihb (Deacon) |
on Apr 11, 2005 at 16:47 UTC ( [id://446671]=note: print w/replies, xml ) | Need Help?? |
Overlooking the smug tone; there's a limit of where people don't want to rely on non-standard modules. Small things like this get reimplemented over and over again, because it's "so small" and it's "not necessary to use a module for that". When a module become standard, that attitude changes somewhat. Now, I'm not saying that this particular module should be in the standard library, but I definately think your categorical rejection of it lacks. Slightly overlooking that the choice to include a module in the standard library seems somewhat arbitrary; many of the newer standard modules are "Perl close", i.e. they solve a problem that has to do with Perl the language, and many others solve omni-present problems. Creating a GUI and your other examples are not omni-present problems. When does a module qualify as a standard module for you? ihb
See perltoc if you don't know which perldoc to read!
In Section
Meditations
|
|