use Perl

• lack of strict (Score:1)

  by itub (5708)

  Wouldn't "use strict; no strict;" work? I don't know exactly how the test works, but I imagine it just looks for "use strict;" and assumes that if you turn it off later it's because you know what you are doing.
  • Re:lack of strict (Score:2)

    by Ovid (2709)

    That's an nice thought. I assume it's just a naive regex against the source code. I'll have to double-check.
    • Re:lack of strict (Score:1)

      by runrig (3385)

      I wonder if this would work: my $junk =
      • Re:lack of strict (Score:1)

        by runrig (3385)

        If I previewed, that would've looked something like:

        my $junk = <<EOT
        use strict;
        EOT
• On using CPANTS as a real metric (Score:1)

  by runrig (3385)

  I had some inside feedback about one of my interviews where they complained that I left the "blah, blah, blah" in the module. This for a module which is for all practical purposes useless, and for which I gave myself a one-star review (and which I occasionally think about removing). So who knows, someday that CPANTS rating (and the idiots that see it as a metric that should mean much of anything) may come back to haunt you.
  • Re:On using CPANTS as a real metric (Score:1)

    by markjugg (792)

    If the CPANTs rating marks a useless "blah blah blah" module as low quality, and that shows up in a job interview, I think the system is working.
    • Re:On using CPANTS as a real metric (Score:1)

      by runrig (3385)

      If the CPANTs rating marks a useless "blah blah blah" module as low quality...

      No, not low quality, it signifies low kwalitee. And even if the kwalitee is raised, the module would still be just as useless (and as far as I could tell, they didn't even read the review where I said that the module is useless, so don't expect much effort to be expended to release a version 2, though someday maybe I will, just for the halibut).
      • Re:On using CPANTS as a real metric (Score:1)

        by runrig (3385)

        And to put it another way...(IMHO anyway) kwalitee is a game, which I may play just for the fun of it, but I'm not going to take it too seriously. Kind of like XP on PerlMonks [perlmonks.org].
        • Re:On using CPANTS as a real metric (Score:1)

          by cog (4665)

          And yet, some people tend to think that XP on PerlMonks can give away whether you're a good or a bad Perl programmer...
        • Re:On using CPANTS as a real metric (Score:1)

          by runrig (3385)

          When I say kwalitee is a game, I didn't know that Domm [perl.org] made it official [dev.zsi.at] :-) I also wanted to say that even though it's a game, it's not "just" a game, since it, e.g., made me look at a couple of modules (Test::Pod and Test::Pod::Coverage) that I probably wouldn't have looked at otherwise, so even games can be instructional.

          It reminds me of the time when I called twelve tone music [rz-berlin.mpg.de] a game in front of a group of mostly musicians, and I received disdained looks and "No it's not!" responses. I didn't realize th
• Acme (Score:1)

  by luqui (5770)

  I think a big attestment to the silliness of CPANTS is the fact that it doesn't omit Acme:: modules to begin with.
  
  But seriously, CPAN is great because it is comprehensive. I really fear that if CPANTS gets popular, that it will destroy this ugly beauty of CPAN. "Oh, I don't want to release this module because it will reduce my CPANTS rating." Who the hell decides that the development practices that CPANTS tests are the good ones, and that they are applicable to every project? I guess that's why CPANTS i