----- Original Message ---- > From: Andy Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Eric Wilhelm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: module-authors@perl.org > Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 2:39:01 PM > Subject: Re: distributed/centralized META.yml data > > The trouble with ad-hoc is just that it tends > > to *never* get formalized (i.e. never gets centrally documented, > > becomes discoverable, appears in books, etc.) > > The trouble with planned soluttions is that it tends to *never* get > implemented. Lots of talking, lots of ideas, precious little > implementation.
I agree completely with this. I see it all the time and it's a huge frustration. > I'm not afraid of iterative solutions. It doesn't bother me to think > that I might implement something today, just to get it out there, and > then have to revert it. That being said, iterative solutions are fine on a personal project or when working on code for a company. They can be far more problematic when they're planned for a huge, real-world user base. If they start out good, lots of people can buy into the first solution and remain stuck on a suboptimal path. Anyone remember how COBOL was supposed to be an "intermediate" step and a proper language released later on? Grace Hopper reportedly said that she would have done things much differently if she new the next version was never coming out. (I could also make snarky comments about the crap we call SQL and how the buy-in to this suboptimal solution has effectively destroyed a lot of real database work, but I won't :) Frankly, I'd suggest waiting a while before pulling the trigger and then if nothing manifests (which I'm guessing it won't), then go ahead. Cheers, Ovid -- Buy the book - http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/perlhks/ Perl and CGI - http://users.easystreet.com/ovid/cgi_course/ Personal blog - http://publius-ovidius.livejournal.com/ Tech blog - http://use.perl.org/~Ovid/journal/
