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
Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.
The important thing here (Score:1)
Reply to This
Just STFU (Score:2)
A considerable portion? Really? Most people I run into using Perl don't even know there's a CPAN.
And, isn't this the same tired argument about why we should be using whatever the hot new technolgy is? I've lost count how many times I've been told this about some Perl module or framework. Indeed, if that's really what you believe, why do you even use Perl? You should be using Java, since even more of the world uses that. And Windows too. And ..., and ..., and ...
Why do you care what Adam decides to use or no
Zealotry is bad Mmm'kay? (Score:1)
This is just sadly ironic. You're saying you are letting the community decide for you what you should and shouldn't explore technically without taking the project itself into account. We have all had our fanboi moments. But, as a Moose developer, I w
Re: (Score:2)
I think you don't understand irony. I'm not letting anyone choose for me. I'm big enough to make my own decisions.
Re: (Score:1)
The incongruity between what you said:
and what you mean
Seemed
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I wonder if something like the Badger framework (Andy Wardley) would give most of what you want with Moose but with better numbers. I have never seen them compared. The benefit I see is that Badger doesn't have outside dependencies so would be easier to "ship" with Padre.
Just a thought...
Re: (Score:1)
Last I looked at it Badger had a totally different set of goals than Moose. Badger was the distillation of what Andy Wardley had been using for building Perl applications while Moose is specifically about building a good MOP based Object Framework for Perl.
And playing devil's advocate for a second, what is the difference between adding one up stream module, and adding 12 that install relatively cleanly (both according to deps.cpantesters.com have a > 90% chance of installing clean on 5.10.0)? In both cas
Re: (Score:1)
Modules you install for yourself are necessary and sufficient and good examples of code reuse.
Modules your dependencies install for you are bloat.
I'm not sure what happens if modules your dependencies need are modules 1) you already have installed for yourself or 2) modules you've written and distributed, but it's a good first approximation of a definition.
Re: (Score:1)
Personally, I take a couple of things into account when I decide whether or not extra modules constitute "bloat".
First, how likely are these modules to fail to install on the target platform(s)? If they are going to make my code harder for the sysadmin (often myself) to move, port, and maintain in the future they may not be worth pulling in to my dependency chain.
Second, how does this module perform given how I will be using it in my code? How does it perform compared to it's alternatives?
Third, do I need a