Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
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.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • After both threads, I feel like I'm in 3rd grade again.

    If you don't like *::Tiny, don't use them. If you think they suck, submit a patch. If *::Tiny does what you need, without installed 42 other modules, (most of which in the XML namespace have various levels of compile headaches and lib versioning issues) then awesome.

    Really, what's the big deal again? It feels like quibbling about calling a non-pedigree cat a feline just because it's not a purebred.
    • Really, what's the big deal again?

      CPAN names are rare. They're first-come, first-served. Thus it seems rude to me to claim a namespace for a distribution that doesn't actually do what the name claims.

      There's tremendous potential for confusion among the vast majority of CPAN users who've never read use Perl. That seems, to me, highly unfair.

      I'm also much less of a fan of bandying about strong assertions such as "Oh yeah, well no real user ever really uses this feature or that feature" without some

      • I don't necessarily disagree with your overall naming issues. But if DBI and XML namespaces are so precious, they should be locked down, and registered to the appropriate set of users. But since we don't register namespaces any more on CPAN, game on as it seems.

        If it takes uploading DBI::Tiny (a templating system), CGI::Tiny (a configuration file format parser), Net::Tiny (a program to build and install distributions), and (just for you) Handel::Tiny (an interpreter for ColorForth) to demonstrate to every

        • XML::Tiny does have something to do with XML.

          Perhaps it does in the sense that what it parses bears a superficial resemblance to XML, in the same way that what PPI::Tiny parses bears a very superficial resemblance to what PPI parses.

          XML has a widely-distributed, well-understood, and well-implemented specification. It's easy to test a parser for compliance with the specification. If it fails, it's not an XML parser.

          That was the point of specifying XML.

          XML::Tiny deliberately does not implement th

          • > PPI::Tiny parses bears a very superficial resemblance to what PPI parses.

            Hardly. It bears more of a resemblence to String.pm

            NONE of the Tiny modules are in compliance with the standards they implement, and all of them make quite clear that they are for a very specific use case, and you should move to a real module as soon as it doesn't meet your needs.

            And the argument of implementing something DIFFERENT, as opposed to implementing something incompletely, is a complete straw man argument.
            • by vek (2312) on 2007.02.01 2:15 (#52966) Journal
              NONE of the Tiny modules are in compliance with the standards they implement, and all of them make quite clear that they are for a very specific use case, and you should move to a real module as soon as it doesn't meet your needs.

              In hindsight the bloke probably shouldn't have claimed that he "decided to do XML right" in his original post though ;-)
              • I agree.

                I've never had this sort of flamewar on any of the other Tiny modules, and they all have similar properties to this one.

                I think the main problem here was the somewhat antagonistic attitude of the post.

                • I think the main problem here was the somewhat antagonistic attitude of the post.

                  Exactly.