use Perl

• Oh, here's one: (Score:1)

  by skazat (7326)

  Less a critique than a question:
  
  Isn't what you've done known as, "Cut and paste" Coding" -
  
  Wouldn't it be easier to tweak Yaml::Tiny a small bit (and give back the changes) to Do What You Need, keep it separate and just use it like you'd use any other module?
  
  I ask this, because the above is what I've been told to do, but much much (much) smarter people than myself. I'd probably include the OP in this group of people. One of the problems is the difficulty in having such a module live a, "Dual Life" - you're b

  --
  

  !!!Dadadadadadadadadada [skazat.com]
  • Re:Oh, here’s one: (Score:1)

    by Aristotle (5147)

    The reason is pretty much stated in his post: the name YAML::Tiny is controversial. A solution that relies on that module is therefore a non-starter.

    Any time experienced people go against good practice, the reason is likely to be politics. Sometimes, technically unsound choices are the only alternative to complete standstill.
    • Re: (Score:1)

      by skazat (7326)

      That's too bad. Most good new ideas are controversial.
      
      A benefit of using YAML::Tiny /would/ be that it would be in core. I know it's a difficult road to get modules in core anyways and that there's a push at least in Perl 6 to keep the number of core modules as small as possible, but in this project a module will have to be added anyways - why not a general purpose one?
      
      

      --
      

      !!!Dadadadadadadadadada [skazat.com]
      • Re: (Score:1)

        by chromatic (983)

        It doesn't process YAML, for one, so the name's wrong.
        • Re:Oh, here’s one: (Score:1)

          by Alias (5735) on 2008.01.10 18:27 (#60134) Homepage Journal

          But then neither does YAML or YAML::Syck :)

          Reply to This

          Parent

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by ChrisDolan (2855)

            But then neither does YAML or YAML::Syck :)
            
            This is fallacious.
            
              * YAML.pm is an incomplete YAML implementation (true)
              * YAML::Tiny is an incomplete YAML implementation (true)
              * YAML is a good enough implementation (largely accepted as true)
              * therefore, YAML::Tiny is a good enough implementation (not largely accepted as true)
            
            • Re: (Score:1)

              by Alias (5735)

              "Good enough" ?
              
              YAML::Tiny isn't a YAML parser not because it doesn't meet an arbitrary line in the sand somewhere. It isn't a YAML parser because it is incomplete and not spec-compliant.
              
              I can live with that.
              
              But to excuse the other (incomplete and non-spec compliant) parsers as well because they INTEND to meet the spec and are somehow "good enough" stinks of hypocrisy and semantic games.