demerphq wrote:
On 4/4/06, Sébastien Aperghis-Tramoni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(*) Yes, I know that the core Perl distribution includes many modules,
but ask any P5Porter and he'll answer you that the core is over-crowed
and that all core modules that can be made dual-life should be
Many module authors set a design objective of making their modules
dependent only on core modules. This is a comment that I see on a
regular basis.
When I hear or read that, I always wonder if the author realised that
core modules is something dependant on the Perl distribution version.
For
demerphq wrote:
On 4/4/06, Sébastien Aperghis-Tramoni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(*) Yes, I know that the core Perl distribution includes many modules,
but ask any P5Porter and he'll answer you that the core is over-crowed
and that all core modules that can be made dual-life should be released
on
Who was it who was working on the global CPAN dependency graph, to
figure out what module was dependent on what? Whatever became of that? I
think hard numbers that stand on their own merits are about the only way
to get new stuff into core. Let the early adopters try out non-CPAN
low-level
Moin,
On Tuesday 04 April 2006 01:50, Tyler MacDonald wrote:
Sébastien Aperghis-Tramoni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OTOH, who still runs pre-5.8.x code deserves what they get.
There are horrible bugs in older Perls, and I don't know why people
still
insist using insecure, buggy and
Moin,
On Tuesday 04 April 2006 18:30, Adam Kennedy wrote:
Who was it who was working on the global CPAN dependency graph, to
figure out what module was dependent on what? Whatever became of
that? I think hard numbers that stand on their own merits are about
the only way to get new stuff
Moin,
On Tuesday 04 April 2006 01:35, Sébastien Aperghis-Tramoni wrote:
Tels wrote:
Moin,
Hello Tels,
OTOH, who still runs pre-5.8.x code deserves what they get.
There are horrible bugs in older Perls, and I don't know why people
still
insist using insecure, buggy and
On Tuesday 04 April 2006 10:32, Tels wrote:
There is also the point that supporting ancient Perls means you
can't use all the new, wonderfull features that were added to later
versions of Perl, like our, warnings etc.
This to me is the biggest problem. After 6 years, is it finally okay for
* demerphq [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-04-04 08:05]:
Personally i think the core is too big argument is a
red-herring given that bandwidth is as cheap as it is these
days. Adding a couple of modules to core would increase the
rsynch time by what a second or two? It would suck up a couple
of extra
On Tuesday 04 April 2006 12:16, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
Is it any wonder that people say core is too big?
Want more heresy?
If the core contained more modules, there'd be even less possibility of
getting managed hosts or hostile system administrators in really picky
environments to install or
* H.Merijn Brand [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-04-04T10:40:39]
And then still people make more of the same. Take Getopt::Long. A perfect and
very functional module. Full of features, matured, and actively maintained.
Now go look at CPAN, and see how many people either do not like it or find
other
On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 10:32:12PM +1000, Adam Kennedy wrote:
Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
On Sat, Mar 11, 2006 at 10:20:29AM +0100, Tels wrote:
B when it breaks, end-users cannot fix the problem for themselves, they
need to bug the author and he has to release a new version. (Good luck
chromatic wrote:
On Tuesday 04 April 2006 10:32, Tels wrote:
There is also the point that supporting ancient Perls means you
can't use all the new, wonderfull features that were added to later
versions of Perl, like our, warnings etc.
This to me is the biggest problem. After 6 years, is
On Tuesday 04 April 2006 21:57, Adam Kennedy wrote:
Seeing as the worst support cases are about 10 years in a variety of
countries and situations, I think that is what we should be aiming for
for highly used CPAN modules.
Which last time I checked is now 5.005.something
So I aim there.
14 matches
Mail list logo
