Selena Sol wrote:
> > John replied:
> > Perhaps, but most of that code is necessary simply to get a
> > programming environment roughly equivalent to core perl.
>
> Hmmm, I am not convinced of that.
Yeah, sorry; on reflection, I think my statement was not well
considered. I was just thinking of all the stupid classes for
doing basic stuff like containers and iterators. They're not
necessary in Perl only because Perl is not strongly typed
(by most definitions; see
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&safe=off&th=a37d423b6f570e63,10&rnum=4&ic=1&selm=20010623153305.20460.qmail%40plover.com
)
> What if there is a security hole in a CPAN module and the author is in
> the middle of final exams? What if you need to extend the module with
> customized features?
Easy to do; you have the source. What's the problem?
> The fact that these modules are not supported by Perl Inc. means that you
> may feel a bit....hanging over the edge. It is not a secure place to be if
> you are a CIO. If you then look at Java which has a more
> centralized/controlled library, you can at least be sure that the core is
> supported by Sun (although at a high cost).
I have nothing to say about Sun or its support of Java; but if you
need that kind of support for existing Perl modules, you can hire a
Perl programmer and have the customizations made locally.
> I think that we as a community should recognize the
> strengths of Java and weakness of Perl.
Without a doubt!
> When I say package, I mean that we need to come up with a pitch
> that could convince a client in 5 sentences why CPAN is great.
Why do you think that's hard?
--
John Porter
