Randy W. Sims wrote: > Hmm, we have: > > 1) Simon's code review ladder: > <http://lists.netthink.co.uk/listinfo/code-review-ladder> > > 2) Ask's CPAN Ratings: <http://cpanratings.perl.org/> > > 3) Perl Monks' Reviews: <http://www.perlmonks.org/index.pl?node=Reviews> > > Each has a slightly different focus, but there is some overlap. A part > of me wonders if they should be at least loosely linked together instead > of remaining 3 independant but related review tools for authors & users; > maybe one review site with two faces, one to help module users find > modules and the other to help module authors improve their modules.
I see 2) above as Amazon-style cheer-leading, and 3) above as more detailed and analytical. I prefer the latter. ;-) There is also gav's CPAN module review wiki at: http://cpan.thegav.com/ and Mark Fowler's lovely Advent Calendar at: http://www.perladvent.org/ I suppose all the above sites could do with more quality content. Bottom line: a quality review is unpaid work taking considerable time and effort; there will always be a shortage of them. Notice that Uri Guttman offers a commerical code review service. To improve your CPAN module code, it's often best to isolate small pieces of code from the module that you're unhappy with and post multiple small questions to Perl Monks; that is much more likely to elicit a response than posting a 500-line module for review. /-\ Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com
