On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 11:34:26AM -0700, Eric Wilhelm wrote:
> # from Hans Dieter Pearcey
> # on Wednesday 08 April 2009 09:20:
> >In particular, saying "maybe" for Module::Build seems pretty
> > reasonable to me, since M::B vs. M::I is the emacs vs. vi of
> > distribution installers, and the summary "there is controversy, but
> > it's definitely better than EUMM" is certainly true.
> As I've said before, this is silly. It's a tool, so either it works or
> it doesn't. We can't really have "controversy" about whether it works
> or how it works.
Despite your saying that we can't, we do. There is disagreement about
whether it's a good idea to use Module::Build, and merely denying that
the disagreement exists is ... well, it's silly.
--
David Cantrell | Hero of the Information Age
The test of the goodness of a thing is its fitness for use. If it
fails on this first test, no amount of ornamentation or finish will
make it any better, it will only make it more expensive and foolish.
-- Frank Pick, lecture to the Design and Industries Assoc, 1916
