Re: Finding the module you want (was: New module Mail::SendEasy)
On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 11:57:15PM +0100, A. Pagaltzis wrote: * Rocco Caputo [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-02-12 11:29]: Conveniently, I've written exactly the thing that provides the features I need, in a way that's most convenient for my purpose. Everything else pales by comparison, otherwise I would not have written it. Here, let me show you. Are you picking a bone with someone particular? :-) Where's the challenge in that?! I'm picking bones with lots of people! ;) -- Rocco Caputo - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://poe.perl.org/
Re: Finding the module you want (was: New module Mail::SendEasy)
Rocco Caputo writes: On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 08:19:14PM +, Smylers wrote: Similarly an author doesn't need to understand all of the problems, just so long as they state exactly what they are looking at, preferably stated upfront. So the article starts by saying I'm looking for a something that does ..., and these are the features that I'd like it to have ..., and this is the way it'd be convenient for it to operate. Conveniently, I've written exactly the thing that provides the features I need, in a way that's most convenient for my purpose. Everything else pales by comparison, otherwise I would not have written it. Here, let me show you. Yeah, that could happen. But such a review would likely be discredited, and may well provide impetus for somebody else to provide a better one. Starting with an explicit list of 'requirements' like that has several advantages: * It makes the subsequent review more objective (and, just as importantly, makes it be seen to be objective), as modules are being compared against defined criteria rather than just on feelings. It's easy to tailor criteria to suit one module over others. True, but by explicitly listing the requirements it means this can be seen by everybody: if you've got a need for a particular type of module and your criteria don't match well with those in the review then you know not to reject (bits of) it. If the review mentions additional criteria then it should make you pause and evaluate whether they apply too you. If you haven't got any criteria then, yes, you're at the mercy of reviewers' whims. But is that really worse than the current situation? Should we get swamped by obviously biased reviews then let's address that. But it isn't a problem we have yet ... Smylers
Re: Finding the module you want (was: New module Mail::SendEasy)
* Rocco Caputo [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-02-12 11:29]: Conveniently, I've written exactly the thing that provides the features I need, in a way that's most convenient for my purpose. Everything else pales by comparison, otherwise I would not have written it. Here, let me show you. Are you picking a bone with someone particular? :-) -- Regards, Aristotle If you can't laugh at yourself, you don't take life seriously enough.
Re: Finding the module you want (was: New module Mail::SendEasy)
Mark Stosberg writes: From another angle, I see the current problem with the rating system is not abuse-- I've never noticed any beyond people rating their own modules with 5 stars with reviews like It's my module. It's primary downfall now is that it's simply not being used a lot. Making further barriers to using it would only serve to work this worse. Yes. My biggest problem with CPAN Ratings at the moment is the amount of hero-worship and mutual backslapping going on. The modal score for individual ratings is clearly 5 stars -- sometimes the homepage can be seen with 15 or more consecutive reviews all with 5 stars (from a variety of different 'raters'). It looks like the next most-common rating is 1 star, for the people panning the completely worthless modules. Possibly just because that's easier to do, compared with other ratings. But I've seen 5-star reviews say things such as will be a great module when it's finished or this is quite good, once you've worked round the docs which are far from easy to follow -- where even within a single review the comments don't match the number of stars! Often the problem with ratings is that the rater hasn't used alternative modules sufficiently to know what else is out there. I really ought to rate more of the modules I use. Part of the problem is that I think of some niggle I could mention in a review, then it seems unfair on the author to complain about it without raising it as a bug report first, but then I'd have to come up with a test-case and ... then I put the whole thing off for later. Smylers
Re: Finding the module you want (was: New module Mail::SendEasy)
A. Pagaltzis writes: I had an idea ... * It's better to have comparative articles than module centric reviews; they're also less susceptible to manipulation. Exactly: sometimes I find an article helpful even though I disagree with the author's conclusions because along the way he/she highlighted one or more specific differences (it's just that I and the author disagree about that they are ...) * Maybe we could have a bunch of comparative articles I don't think there's much point in planning the infrastructure for dealing with a bunch of comparative articles: they are awkward -- and very time-consuming -- to write. If we get to a situation where we're swamped by useful comparisons but no useful way to arrange them, then _that's_ when we need to discuss infrastructure. But doing so until then would be premature (and a waste of time that could be spent writing comparison articles). * Wait, there's already a way to put results in the search engine -- namely, uploading a distribution.. How about putting writing such comparative articles and posting them under Introduction:: ? That might be seen as an abuse of Cpan. Mirrors around the world are kindly offering space for Perl modules and haven't agreed to anything else. (That's one of the reasons why requests to put other sorts of things on there have been turned down.) People might object if Cpan starts being used for people to start uploading political propaganda. (Yes, I know that you were suggesting objective comparative reviews, which are not political propaganda -- but as has recently been seen on this list, that won't necessarily prevent somebody else taking offence at it and seeing it as such.) There's also the risk that other people will start uploading all sorts of opinion pieces on various topics tentatively related to Perl, and then the actual point of Cpan, the modules, gets lost among all the ranting and bickering. Let's get some good material written first, then worry about where to stick it ... Smylers
Re: Finding the module you want (was: New module Mail::SendEasy)
Simon Cozens writes: Hrm, there isn't an easy way to say this, but an issue with module reviews is that they're generally written by someone with a particular bias towards their own solution. True. But: * In order for you to have come to that conclusion, the bias must've been obvious in the reviews. In which case the review is still better than nothing, because the readers can take the review into account. * If a particular reviewer manages to hide her/his bias sufficiently and they've been convincing enough to persuade people og her/his viewpoint then well done to them -- has any harm really been done? And of course there's nothing to prevent multiple authors writing rival articles -- people are more likely to link to and point others at whichever one they find the most useful. But yes, as the CGI::Lite maintainer I do have an interest in a review of CGI-related modules: I'd like it to put people off using CGI::Lite so that I can stop trying to maintain it and everybody can use something saner instead ... Smylers
Re: Finding the module you want (was: New module Mail::SendEasy)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Smylers) writes: Let's get some good material written first, then worry about where to stick it ... Oh, I know a little Perl-related web site that would love any module comparison articles you were to come up with. -- The use of COBOL cripples the mind; its teaching should, therefore, be regarded as a criminal offence. -- Edsger W. Dijkstra, SIGPLAN Notices, Volume 17, Number 5
Re: Finding the module you want (was: New module Mail::SendEasy)
Delivered-To: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Finding the module you want (was: New module Mail::SendEasy) From: Simon Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 11 Feb 2004 10:25:07 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Smylers) writes: Let's get some good material written first, then worry about where to stick it ... Oh, I know a little Perl-related web site that would love any module comparison articles you were to come up with. -- The use of COBOL cripples the mind; its teaching should, therefore, be regarded as a criminal offence. -- Edsger W. Dijkstra, SIGPLAN Notices, Volume 17, Number 5
Re: Finding the module you want (was: New module Mail::SendEasy)
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, Smylers wrote: Let's get some good material written first, then worry about where to stick it ... I'm coming in a bit late, but isn't this exactly what the various Perl conferences are for? I say submit it, get it reviewed as worthy, present it, then have it archived (online). Drafts or less substantial works can be published at the various online outlets. David P.S. I proposed a short article to a to-be-nameless website and got the cold shoulder. So I guess conferences are good in that they have formal structures for ensuring all submissions are evaluated fairly. _ David Coppit [EMAIL PROTECTED] The College of William and Maryhttp://coppit.org/ When we understand the meaning of the term Engineering, we won't offer one-term courses entitled Software Engineering -- David L. Parnas
Re: Finding the module you want (was: New module Mail::SendEasy)
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, A. Pagaltzis wrote: * It's better to have comparative articles than module centric reviews; they're also less susceptible to manipulation. I think these are great. The problem is they're a lot of work. I've written two (POOP and date/time) and I know Perrin wrote one for templating systems. They require you to look at _lots_ of modules and also to have a good understanding of all the problems that need to be solved in the area. Not that I'm trying to discourage anyone, just pointing out that it's a non-trivial task. -dave /*=== House Absolute Consulting www.houseabsolute.com ===*/
Re: Finding the module you want (was: New module Mail::SendEasy)
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, Dave Rolsky wrote: On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, A. Pagaltzis wrote: * It's better to have comparative articles than module centric reviews; they're also less susceptible to manipulation. I think these are great. The problem is they're a lot of work. I've written two (POOP and date/time) and I know Perrin wrote one for templating systems. They require you to look at _lots_ of modules and also to have a good understanding of all the problems that need to be solved in the area. Not that I'm trying to discourage anyone, just pointing out that it's a non-trivial task. I can concurr. I have written a bunch about XML modules (http://xmltwig.com/article/) and even the simplest ones, like the Ways to Rome series, take quite a long time to write. -- Michel Rodriguez Perl amp; XML http://www.xmltwig.com
Re: Finding the module you want (was: New module Mail::SendEasy)
* Dave Rolsky autarch at urth.org [2004/02/10 09:03]: On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, A. Pagaltzis wrote: * It's better to have comparative articles than module centric reviews; they're also less susceptible to manipulation. I think these are great. The problem is they're a lot of work. I've written two (POOP and date/time) and I know Perrin wrote one for templating systems. They require you to look at _lots_ of modules and also to have a good understanding of all the problems that need to be solved in the area. I agree with you, but, if you are already investigating software to handle a task, wouldn't you look at as many alternatives as possible? I think the trick is to write down your observations after you do one of these exhaustive searches. For example, IIRC, Perrin wrote his templating comparison paper because he spent a lot of time researching the templating systems anyway. (darren) -- An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it. pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Finding the module you want (was: New module Mail::SendEasy)
Le 10 févr. 04, à 16:16, darren chamberlain a écrit : I agree with you, but, if you are already investigating software to handle a task, wouldn't you look at as many alternatives as possible? I certainly wouldn't. Rather, I would look at as many alternatives as necessary until I find the module that does what I want with an API that suits me. More often than not it's been the first candidate. -- Eric Cholet
Re: Finding the module you want (was: New module Mail::SendEasy)
* Eric Cholet cholet at logilune.com [2004/02/10 17:27]: Le 10 f?vr. 04, ? 16:16, darren chamberlain a ?crit : I agree with you, but, if you are already investigating software to handle a task, wouldn't you look at as many alternatives as possible? I certainly wouldn't. Rather, I would look at as many alternatives as necessary until I find the module that does what I want with an API that suits me. More often than not it's been the first candidate. But how would you know you found the right one if you don't look at all of them? The first might look good, but the second might be even better. (darren) -- It is impossible to experience one's death objectively and still carry a tune. -- Woody Allen pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Finding the module you want (was: New module Mail::SendEasy)
On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 05:27:11PM +0100, Eric Cholet wrote: Le 10 f?vr. 04, ? 16:16, darren chamberlain a ?crit : I agree with you, but, if you are already investigating software to handle a task, wouldn't you look at as many alternatives as possible? I certainly wouldn't. Rather, I would look at as many alternatives as necessary until I find the module that does what I want with an API that suits me. More often than not it's been the first candidate. Likewise, considering projects have budgets and timelines, I'd likely stop at the first one that seemed good enough. Mark
Re: Finding the module you want (was: New module Mail::SendEasy)
Le 10 févr. 04, à 17:29, darren chamberlain a écrit : * Eric Cholet cholet at logilune.com [2004/02/10 17:27]: Le 10 f?vr. 04, ? 16:16, darren chamberlain a ?crit : I agree with you, but, if you are already investigating software to handle a task, wouldn't you look at as many alternatives as possible? I certainly wouldn't. Rather, I would look at as many alternatives as necessary until I find the module that does what I want with an API that suits me. More often than not it's been the first candidate. But how would you know you found the right one if you don't look at all of them? The first might look good, but the second might be even better. What's the right one? A right one is one that solves my particular problem, and doesn't make jump through hoops. Most of the time the module does one specific thing, and if I can just call methods to do that, then that's good enough. There are some external factors, for example when I was looking for a logging module I looked at Log::Dispatch first because I have previous satisfaction with its author's work. There is of course another category of modules that I use, larger systems such as a templating module, or a date module. For those, I have found that hanging around mailing lists and forums quickly point me to the better alternatives. For those the time/budget issue is even more crucial because they take more effort and time to evaluate. -- Eric Cholet
Re: Finding the module you want (was: New module Mail::SendEasy)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dave Rolsky) writes: On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, A. Pagaltzis wrote: * It's better to have comparative articles than module centric reviews; they're also less susceptible to manipulation. I think these are great. The problem is they're a lot of work. I've written two (POOP and date/time) and I know Perrin wrote one for templating systems. Hrm, there isn't an easy way to say this, but an issue with module reviews is that they're generally written by someone with a particular bias towards their own solution. (I say that as someone who wrote one too ;) That's not necessarily a problem if they're presented as a I took a look at the options and this is why I'm doing it my way, but is not all it could be if it is presented as an unbiased review. -- Life would be so much easier if we could just look at the source code. -- Dave Olson
Re: Finding the module you want (was: New module Mail::SendEasy)
On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 09:03:27AM -0600, Dave Rolsky wrote: On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, A. Pagaltzis wrote: * It's better to have comparative articles than module centric reviews; they're also less susceptible to manipulation. I think these are great. The problem is they're a lot of work. I've written two (POOP and date/time) and I know Perrin wrote one for templating systems. They require you to look at _lots_ of modules and also to have a good understanding of all the problems that need to be solved in the area. Comparative articles are an incredible amount of work, especially for problem domains with a lot of options. They're even more work when the author has a vested interest in one of the modules being compared. He must take extra precautions to enforce objectivity. Anything less, and the conflict of interest will almost assuredly tip the scales in his module's favor. Consider comparative benchmarks as an example. It's a lot of work to negate bias towards modules the author is more familiar with. Maybe Open Source needs an objective reviewing organization like Consumer Union (http://www.consumerreports.org/). They could compare programming languages, text editors, and operating systems. A number of long-standing holy wars could be ended once and for all. :) -- Rocco Caputo - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://poe.perl.org/
Re: Finding the module you want (was: New module Mail::SendEasy)
* Mark Stosberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-02-10 16:31]: With Perl modules, I think there is typically less on the line than $100,000 contracts. I found in my own experience that people are generally trustworthy. Precisely this lack of consequence actually makes me feel it might be more problematic. Cf popularity contest. It's primary downfall now is that it's simply not being used a lot. Making further barriers to using it would only serve to work this worse. I certainly agree. If the system is highly used and slightly abused (say 1%), the ratings should still remain useful. That's precisely why I'm weary of incentive to abuse.. :) I don't know; this is mostly gut feeling. I am likely too suspicious; I just can't shake the unease. -- Regards, Aristotle If you can't laugh at yourself, you don't take life seriously enough.
Re: Finding the module you want (was: New module Mail::SendEasy)
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, Simon Cozens wrote: Hrm, there isn't an easy way to say this, but an issue with module reviews is that they're generally written by someone with a particular bias towards their own solution. (I say that as someone who wrote one too ;) That's not necessarily a problem if they're presented as a I took a look at the options and this is why I'm doing it my way, but is not all it could be if it is presented as an unbiased review. One way to ameliorate this is to allow others to contribute. For the POOP comparison, I've taken contributions from other module authors describing their modules and/or correcting my mistakes in describing them, so hopefully it's a bit more balanced. For the date/time stuff, it's obvious from my perl.com article that I considered the situation hopeless, I think ;) -dave /*=== House Absolute Consulting www.houseabsolute.com ===*/
