2007/9/2, Adrian Hey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Other meaningless measures that have been suggested are the rate of > patch submissions of the number of developers involved. I seem to > remember someone recently suggesting that libraries that score highly > in on this regard should be elevated to "blessed" status. > I don't see them as completely meaningless, such a library is more likely to be corrected if you report a bug, and if a library lacks certain features but seems interesting, I'm less inclined to give it a chance if nobody worked on it for years than if there's an active community, frequent update and a roadmap. Still it's not sufficient, I agree with you.
> Personally the first things I tend to look at are things like the > quality of documentation and the presence of of some kind of test > suite. Both these are IMO opinion pretty reliable indications that > the author(s) have actually devoted some time and effort into > deciding what it is that the library aims to achieve and have > designed a coherent API (and have made reasonable effort to ensure > that it actually works). I tend lose interest pretty fast if even > basic Haddock API documentation is either non-existant, or consists > of nothing but type signatures, or that plus broken link to some > ancient postscript paper. > Yes, those are some of the more interesting metrics, the CPAN try to take them into account with the recent Kwalitee metric. Thing is we probably won't find _the best_ metric (if such a thing existed, I think it will already have been found) but we can try to give some useful indications. -- Jedaï _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe