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
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
David Manura writes:
Smylers wrote:
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 ...
Of course,
* 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
Mark Stosberg wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 09:59:32AM +0100, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
* Mark Stosberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-02-09 15:26]:
I think the CPAN rating system could be of further help here as
well. It could be integrated with the search.cpan.org search
engine. The rating could appear
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
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
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
[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,
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
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
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
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
* 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
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
* 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
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
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
[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
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.
* 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
* Eric Cholet [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-02-10 18:51]:
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.
And
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
23 matches
Mail list logo
