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.
Indeed -- and that's what makes them so valuable.
> I've written two (POOP and date/time)
I've had no need to do anything POOP-ish, but thank you very much for
your date/time article; it was excellent. Much of what you mentioned I
did know, just not all at the same time: I'd had experience with most of
those modules of several years, but I couldn't remember which experience
went with which module, as (until the excellent DateTime project) all of
them seemed to be wanting in at least some situations ...
> 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.
Ideally, yes, but not necessarily. If some topic area has 10 modules in
it and somebody presents a comparison of just 6 of them then it's still
useful. And possibly somebody else with have experience of the others,
will be able to judge them by the criteria mentioned, and chip in.
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".
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 means that if a reader with a similar problem thinks that a
criterion listed isn't important -- or has extra criteria which are
-- then he/she can bare that in mind when reading the review, and
still get value from it.
* Others can use those requirements to review further modules.
* Somebody could later add another requirement and only has to check
out each of the modules for that to augment the review: it isn't
necessary to start from scratch.
Smylers
