Slash Boxes
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

use Perl Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

Ovid (2709)

  (email not shown publicly)
AOL IM: ovidperl (Add Buddy, Send Message)

Stuff with the Perl Foundation. A couple of patches in the Perl core. A few CPAN modules. That about sums it up.

Journal of Ovid (2709)

Tuesday September 20, 2005
12:07 PM


[ #26805 ]

I'm going to have to start rereleasing some modules to swat that annoying CPANTs fly. I wasn't planning on it. I know that the quality of my modules is generally good, but after reading and commenting on the Perl QA list about CPANTs and Kwalitee, I realize that if there is a metric by which someone can judge my code, they will. It's easier for me to just make that a non-issue than to explain the (potential) error of their ways.

What's worse is me envisioning a job interview several years down the road where I hear the words "about this mediocre CPANTs rating you have".

Now to figure out the easiest way to fake out CPANTs regarding Acme::Code::Police's lack of strict.

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • 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.
  • 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.
    • 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.
      • 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).

        • 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 [].
          • And yet, some people tend to think that XP on PerlMonks can give away whether you're a good or a bad Perl programmer...
          • When I say kwalitee is a game, I didn't know that Domm [] made it official [] :-) 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 [] 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

  • 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