Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from April 2010
Re: Try::Tiny in Core?
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next
From:
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
Date:
April 5, 2010 12:32
Subject:
Re: Try::Tiny in Core?
Message ID:
o2y51dd1af81004051232q5b005d39h1293044cdf42501d@mail.gmail.com
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 19:23, Jesse Vincent <jesse@fsck.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 03:05:16PM -0400, David Golden wrote:
>> I already have an experimental branch of CPAN.pm that auto-detects
>> when the user does not have write permissions to the current perl and
>> sets up the equivalent of what local::lib does automatically
>> (including offering to modify .bashrc, .cshrc or the Windows Registry
>> as necessary). Much of it has been cribbed from local::lib and just
>> integrated into CPAN's auto-config.
>>
>> mst and I have discussed options for better integration -- possibly
>> just including local:;lib into core and using it directly rather than
>> copying/pasting code from it.
>
> That'd certainly be worth considering.
Yeah. While a slim core is neat conceptually in practice perl's lack
of core modules means that these days Python or Java are much better
targets for throwaway sysadmin scripts or other small programs you
want to use on $some_random_system.
Better CPAN integration isn't going to give you everything that
"batteries included" does. A OSX user is still going to have to jump
through hoops to install C compiler if your program depends on
DBD::SQLite for instance, in Python it's there by default (along with
XML parsers and a bunch of other "batteries").
But of course having all that stuff in core means maintaining it
indefinitely, which means more strain on the porters. I wouldn't
suggest something like "let's drop the top 100 CPAN module into core"
without *very* widespread consensus on that point.
I started a little catalog of modules that @other_languages have that
we don't over at GitHub: http://github.com/avar/pid
Maybe it would be useful to move that to the p5 wiki.
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next