Re^2: Top 11 (GOOD) reasons not to use someone else's Modules

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

(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.

Comment on Re^2: Top 11 (GOOD) reasons not to use someone else's Modules

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Top 11 (GOOD) reasons not to use someone else's Modules by chromatic (Archbishop) on Apr 23, 2012 at 22:19 UTC
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.	[reply]
Re^4: Top 11 (GOOD) reasons not to use someone else's Modules by sundialsvc4 (Abbot) on Apr 24, 2012 at 00:14 UTC
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.)	[reply]
Re^4: Top 11 (GOOD) reasons not to use someone else's Modules by Anonymous Monk on Apr 24, 2012 at 07:07 UTC
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.	[reply]
Re^5: Top 11 (GOOD) reasons not to use someone else's Modules by chromatic (Archbishop) on Apr 24, 2012 at 18:00 UTC
Fairly summarising his own words: "software professionals all". In context, clearly talking about uploaders. He made no comment about what they uploaded. Strawman It's as much a strawman as it isn't a Scotsman.	[reply]

In Section Meditations