in reply to Re^2: CPAN - wheat from the chaff
in thread CPAN - wheat from the chaff

Well, I agree that it is an important question as it is just this sort of issue that can put off potential PERL converts before they get involved.

Naturally, I'm not keen on the "nothing" idea or I wouldn't have asked the question. The Module Review sounds like one of those ideas that is fine in theory but unlikely to work in practice as it sounds like it would require a lot of startup and ongoing work.

The popularity of something is not necessarily a good indicator that it's the best thing to use so I'd suggest this is not the right road.

I don't think I quite agree with the comment on chaff. Of course one man's chaff is another's wheat but, if we agree that the word chaff should be replaced with something less contentious - then there are certainly still modules that I (and as I'm a fairly typical semi-competent developer, I expect I speak for many) don't want to see when searching and they are easily categorised into 3 types
1. "inadvisable" modules (poorly written, no support, not cross-platform etc.) 2. modules that have been largely superceded by something else for most general purposes. 3. modules that are to all intents and purposes only used as submodules and are not useful by themselves.

I'm not sure any of the proposed courses of action would give me this TBH. But the categorised Q&A would meet the requirement without too much additional work so may be a good compromise.