Andreas J. Koenig wrote:
On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 10:41:27 +1300, Sam Vilain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sun, 2005-11-06 at 07:51 +0100, Andreas J. Koenig wrote:
>> > So, the question I would now ask: How rigidly should I enforce the
>> > 44-character limit if I am guiding someone in the task of creating
>> > proper Perl modules?
>> As the module list is dead, we cannot really argue in favor of 44
>> characters except with the one argument of tradition/best practice. I
>> believe when 3815 authos have managed to describe their modules in 44
>> characters, then it should be doable for some other 3815000 modules
>> too.
> Yes, let's keep it short. But how about increasing the limit to 60 or
> so? Many a time I would've liked an extra word or two.
>> There's an old business advice that you shouldn't start an enterprize
>> if you cannot describe its mission in a single sentence. I think its
>> true for modules too.
> There are very few sentences that fit in 44 characters. 60 characters I
> think still honours this principle.
I will be very happy if you guys decide something and let me know.
I'll adjust the code for the forms on PAUSE then.
It's not clear to me which "guys" get to make this decision. I don't
know how the original 44-character limit came about.
IMHO, 44 characters is nowadays too short and 60 maybe too short as
well. I'd prefer to err on the side of generosity and say 100
characters. Or perhaps: Only as many characters as will fit in one
line in a typical browser at a default font size on the author's home
page on CPAN (68-ish). Or perhaps: the magic 78 recommended by Damian
for lines in text editors. As you can see, this is largely a question
of taste.
But this decision can be informed by empirical research. Perhaps we
should take a look at ABSTRACTs for distros written by very prolific
CPAN contributors such as DCONWAY, AUTRIJUS, BDFOY, etc., and see what
they have done in this regard, i.e., how long are their ABSTRACTs?
