http://qs321.pair.com?node_id=966682


in reply to Top 11 (GOOD) reasons not to use someone else's Modules

I respect your right to offer opinions, but I don’t share any of them.   And if those opinions were in the majority, we would not see this tag-line on search.cpan.org:   (today...)

78,111 Uploads; 24,694 Distributions; 105,940 Modules, 9,641 Uploaders.

If nearly ten thousand people (software professionals all ...) have produced and freely contributed more than one hundred thousand modules to CPAN since its inception, I think there must be some very compelling reason for it.   I don’t think that any of those people share your opinion, either.   But I daresay they do share mine.

Nevertheless, this is a public forum, and thank you for your opinions.

  • Comment on Re: Top 11 (GOOD) reasons not to use someone else's Modules

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Top 11 (GOOD) reasons not to use someone else's Modules
by Anonymous Monk on Apr 23, 2012 at 21:41 UTC
    (software professionals all ...)

    Oh, if only that were true.

    I'd estimate that on average, 4 out of every 5 modules selected at random from cpan has serious shortcomings. Ranging from the crude, unidiomatic replication of built in functionality to plain old badly coded and broken crap.

    Whilst the remaining 20,000+ "good" modules leaves cpan with probably the greatest concentration of freely available, quality open source software there is, the blanket acceptance and promotion of "everything cpan" by people like you, does Perl far more harm than good.

      I'd estimate that on average...

      That's not scientific rigor.

      ... serious shortcomings. Ranging from...

      That bucket lumps together a lot of categories. Some of them are even damning.

      ... the blanket acceptance...

      You're putting words in sundial's post.

      ... does Perl far more harm than good.

      That conclusion is difficult to support.

      ... cpan ‘is’ probably the greatest concentration of freely available, quality open source software there is...

      Seems fair to me to assume that a software professional will use professional judgment to decide what to use and when, and which of your identified shortcomings matter in any given set of circumstances.

        You're putting words in sundial’s post.
        Correct.   Thank you.   Hence, I have nothing further to say.   Well ...

        Except perhaps to reiterate this, which I have already said before:   IMHO, the CPAN library is the source of the market-strength of the Perl language system.   Without trying to split-hairs too closely or too paint with too big of a brush... “One seeks out and uses the Perl system, not [merely?] for love of the language itself, but because it gives you the use of CPAN.”   You stand on the shoulders of giants.   Every giant has fleas if you look close enough, but you’re not there for the fleas:   you’re there for the view.   Lots of things become easy and quick from way-y-y up there.   And, I hold that truth to be self-evident (to most).   Having dealt with the contributed libraries of many a language (and with malice toward none):   “there is a difference.”   You can agree with me or not; I won’t pursue it further.

        My sincere thanks and compliments to all of the CPAN contributors, testers, documentation writers and other gods.   (Oddly enough, I am not among you.)

        I'd estimate that on average...That's not scientific rigor.

        How does "I'd estimate" suggest "scientific rigor"?

        It doesn't. Strawman.

        ... the blanket acceptance... You're putting words in sundial's post.

        No. Fairly summarising his own words: "software professionals all".

        Seems fair to me to assume that a software professional will use professional judgment

        Resisting the urge to hoist you with your own unscientific petard, your assumption flies in the face of the evidence: "software professionals all".

        You further compound that by leaping to the defense of the indefensible.