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

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.
  • And these cargo cults have potentially disastrous results, caused either by their mere existence or by a bad implementation.

    Take, for example, the use_warnings metric.

    While it is all well and good to encourage the use of, the CPANTS metric is grossly inadequate because the use of warnings is limited to 5.6 or above.

    As a result, it is impossible for a module with a 5.005 or older Perl version dependency to legally meet the criteria of the metric.

    The author is forced to a) unnecessarily increase the version dependency b) modify the module adding an unnecesary warnings::compat dependency, or c) cheat to meet the metric.

    Maybe what we really need is the equivalent of:

    no warnings 'uninitialized';

    where the programmer can set a flag to turn off items... or in this case, check them off the list.

    So, perhaps something like this:

    no kwalatiee 'pod';

    could go into Makefile.PL or some other appropriate place.

    The point is to bring the items to the programmers attention. This allows to programmer to acknowledge the issue in a manner they feel is appropriate.

    Just an idea...

    • Not "Just an idea", rather "Just a bad idea".

      I'd prefer Kwalitee to be invisible unless the author explicitly enables it.

      For those of us who don't play the Kwalitee game, the result is an /apparent/ comment on the quality of our modules, and hence on our reputations.

      Nasty. Deliberately nasty? Perhaps, although I certainly hope not.

      And yes, I understand perfectly that it's a good idea to encourage author to care about their code. So it's effectively a side-effect of Kwalitee I'm complaining about.
      • For those of us who don't play the Kwalitee game, the result is an /apparent/ comment on the quality of our modules, and hence on our reputations.
        Hm... as a pretty heavy user of CPAN (via the web interface), I can assure you I've NEVER looked at the kwalatiee score for a module.

        Your reputation is safe. (in that regard)


        I could not even tell you where to find that data before googling for 'cpants' just now.

        (As an aside, is that data even available from CPAN? Perhaps my brain is interpreting as an advertisement... because I don't see it.)

        I thought the whole purpose of the kwalatiee system was to help authors write better modules for CPAN. (which is why I suggested the "bad idea" of giving the author the ability to tell the system to ignore a criteria)

        And, as a (lowly) user, I can assure you I don't give a damn what an automated system says about "kwalatiee".

        I'm a much better judge of when a piece of code is suitable for my desired use, or not. (that is what unit tests, the ones I write, are for)

        Maybe what is really needed is for people to stop comparing kwalatiee scores, since they are pretty meaningless as a measure of utility or quality.

        At least they are from this user's perspective.