There is a new release candidate for CPAN that sets up some very nice defaults for using CPAN:
http://www.dagolden.com/index.php/1339/cpan-pm-release-candi...
What’s so great about CPAN anyway?
11–20 of 26 posts
Re: What’s so great about CPAN anyway?
#12Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of which 50% are abandoned and 25% are alpha. And 12% are duplicates and you need to decide which to use. At least that was the state in the 90s when all I did was Perl. [Fixed some English]
The irony is that even in environments like Java and .NET, where, in theory, one person makes all the decisions with respect to what libraries to include, there are 50% deprecated classes, 25% that don't work, and 12% are duplicates and you need to decide what to use. I don't think I've ever written a Java app where 90% of the libraries I wanted to use have been deprecated in favor of AbstractSimpleTaskFactoryConfigu…
>What's great about Perl is that you are forced to use very few of these modules
That sort of kills the claim that perl is great because of the size of CPAN, no?
Re: What’s so great about CPAN anyway?
#13Earlier quoted context omitted.
The irony is that even in environments like Java and .NET, where, in theory, one person makes all the decisions with respect to what libraries to include, there are 50% deprecated classes, 25% that don't work, and 12% are duplicates and you need to decide what to use. I don't think I've ever written a Java app where 90% of the libraries I wanted to use have been deprecated in favor of AbstractSimpleTaskFactoryConfigu…
>What's great about Perl is that you are forced to use very few of these modules That sort of kills the claim that perl is great because of the size of CPAN, no?
Nope. Its darwinian, the more modules in the gene pool means newer/better solutions need to fight harder to survive & win. So the outcome is often better for Perl/CPAN, for eg. Moose
Re: What’s so great about CPAN anyway?
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think new hackers could be easily drawn into using Perl simply because of the breadth of tools available in CPAN. Chances are whatever you need to do, someone has written a module for it. Why roll your own when there's a stable module? Of course the new user may quickly run into CPAN dependency hell, but that's a different issue.
Of which 50% are abandoned and 25% are alpha. And 12% are duplicates and you need to decide which to use. At least that was the state in the 90s when all I did was Perl. [Fixed some English]
I doubt those figures are (meant to be?) accurate.
In the 90's CPAN would have only had a few thousand distributions and looking at some stats from circa 2002 there were 5000 distributions from 20,000 uploads so the 50% abandoned figure does not sound correct.
Re: What’s so great about CPAN anyway?
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
>What's great about Perl is that you are forced to use very few of these modules That sort of kills the claim that perl is great because of the size of CPAN, no?
Nope. Its darwinian, the more modules in the gene pool means newer/better solutions need to fight harder to survive & win. So the outcome is often better for Perl/CPAN, for eg. Moose
That's your assumption. Higher quantity in no way implies that the quality entries will be higher than they would be in a system with less quantity.
Re: What’s so great about CPAN anyway?
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nope. Its darwinian, the more modules in the gene pool means newer/better solutions need to fight harder to survive & win. So the outcome is often better for Perl/CPAN, for eg. Moose
That's your assumption. Higher quantity in no way implies that the quality entries will be higher than they would be in a system with less quantity.
You're the one who keeps making assumptions!
My statements about darwinism and also about Moose being better for Perl/CPAN are factually correct.
Re: What’s so great about CPAN anyway?
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's your assumption. Higher quantity in no way implies that the quality entries will be higher than they would be in a system with less quantity.
You're the one who keeps making assumptions! My statements about darwinism and also about Moose being better for Perl/CPAN are factually correct.
>My statements about darwinism
Darwinism has nothing to do with this. At best you're trying to invent a connection that doesn't exist.
Re: What’s so great about CPAN anyway?
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're the one who keeps making assumptions! My statements about darwinism and also about Moose being better for Perl/CPAN are factually correct.
>My statements about darwinism Darwinism has nothing to do with this. At best you're trying to invent a connection that doesn't exist.
Clearly darwinism hasn't made trolls extinct yet :)
Based on your comments here and the fact you're a newly created account then I am going to have to make the assumption that trolls do indeed exist among us :(
Re: What’s so great about CPAN anyway?
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
>My statements about darwinism Darwinism has nothing to do with this. At best you're trying to invent a connection that doesn't exist.
Clearly darwinism hasn't made trolls extinct yet :) Based on your comments here and the fact you're a newly created account then I am going to have to make the assumption that trolls do indeed exist among us :(
You seriously think I made this account just to troll you? Talk about defensive.
Re: What’s so great about CPAN anyway?
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
Still the same. Also, few people look at bugs reported via cpan. I never got a response to any of mine. At least you can see some packages going red on more and more systems, so it's quite easy to spot the useless/unmaintained ones. True regarding duplication - if I had a penny for every new incomplete logging framework uploaded to CPAN, I'd be a rich man...
No, people stopped writing logging frameworks years ago. Even Log4Perl and Log::Dispatch interoperate now. The cool new thing is web frameworks. But of course, due to PSGI, those all work together too! "There's more than one way to do it", but at least you can deploy them all to production in the same way. As for bugs; trust me, people reply to them. Take a look at how many Moose bugs are "resolved", for example: htt…
Stopped? Years ago? Log::Fine (2008), Amphibic::Log (2010), Su::Log (2011), Easy::Log (2007), Log::Smart (2007), Log::Deep (2009), Util::Thread::Logger (2011), ...
I won't even mention all the one-module-specific mini-logging scripts which do it yet another way.