comment on

No we don't.

I don't need an SPL. I don't think the perl community need an SPL. If we'd wanted a single standard library of modules that've been singled out and promoted as the absolute truth and The Way We Do Things Around Here, we'd have turned to Java in the first place. Java is a great language that has an excellent class library that's getting better for each release. Also, java gives you no choice about what library/classes/modules to use. It's Sun's way or the highway.

I don't want that to happen to perl. I don't want a standards committee to decide what algorithms I should run. You might say that I have a choice and that I could choose not to go with the standard modules, but that's not how things'd work out in the long run. Eventually, there wouldn't be any other modules, and if I insisted on rolling my own, I'd be derided as a naive newbie. It couldn't happen here, you say? This is already how we treat anyone who admits to writing his own cgi routines (see A "newbies" thoughts on cgi.pm... for the most recent thread).

Cheers,
--Moodster

In reply to Re: We have no SPL. by moodster
in thread We have no SPL. by educated_foo

Are you posting in the right place? Check out Where do I post X? to know for sure.
Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags. Currently these include the following:
<code> <a> <b> <big> <blockquote> <br /> <dd> <dl> <dt> <em> <font> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr /> <i> <li> <nbsp> <ol> <p> <small> <strike> <strong> <sub> <sup> <table> <td> <th> <tr> <tt> <u> <ul>
Snippets of code should be wrapped in <code> tags not <pre> tags. In fact, <pre> tags should generally be avoided. If they must be used, extreme care should be taken to ensure that their contents do not have long lines (<70 chars), in order to prevent horizontal scrolling (and possible janitor intervention).
Want more info? How to link or How to display code and escape characters are good places to start.


good chemistry is complicated, and a little bit messy -LW
	PerlMonks