On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 11:47 AM, Andy Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I guess that's my very point. Here's this entire subsystem that exists to > supposedly give information to authors and potential users about the > relative quality of the code, and yet the attitude that comes out is "Eh, we > like it, you don't have to like it."
No, the attitude for the most part is "a bunch of people find many of these things useful and some people disagree" and only those who just insist that it's all crap get told that they're free to ignore it. Kwalitee just isn't black and white -- it's all shades of gray. I mean, has anyone actually read the CPANTS home page recently? Paragraph 2: "Please take all the information presented here with a grain of salt. The methods used to test the distributions are a bit flakey, and some of the Kwalitee indicators are still subjects of discussions" Or the Kwalitee page: http://cpants.perl.org/kwalitee.html What is a good module? That's hard to say. What is good code? That's also hard to say. "Quality" is not a well-defined term in computing ... and especially not Perl. One man's Thing of Beauty is another's man's Evil Hack Since we can't define quality, how do we write a program to assure it? Schwern decided to cleverly avoid this problem by not testing for quality but for Kwalitee: It looks like quality, it sounds like quality, but it's not quite quality. I think that's pretty clear that it's not perfect and the reasonable people can disagree as to what metrics are valuable. > Take a lesson from Perl::Critic and explain the reasoning behind the > policies. That's a very good suggestion. Some of that is here: http://cpants.perl.org/kwalitee.html But it's pretty skimpy on rationale and should be expanded. -- David
