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.
  • Okay I biased that straight off. Instead I should have said uni-dimensional versus multi-dimensional.

    Kwalitee is uni-dimensional. It's a checklist and kwalitee is the sum of the boxes checked. Looking at the total, we put into a supplementary position information about which of the boxes were checked.

    There is something to be said for this. If without background knowledge, you want to compare 2 arbitrary modules quickly, you don't want to have to understand what each of the individual dimensions are.

    Just tel
    • The problem with this is that it merely offloads the work from the server to the (wetware) client. It makes it easier to write the Perl metrics code, at the expense of making it more difficult to understand the result.
  • 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...

    • This is the same silly pattern that we got from Perl::Critic and a number of other systems.

      They excuse the mistakes of the automated scanner by forcing every programmer everywhere to bloat their programs out with instructions to the flawed scanning systems.

      I much prefer the idea of making the automated code as smart as possible first.
    • 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. (whic