develooper Front page | perl.module-authors | Postings from June 2008

Re: New CPANTS metrics

Thread Previous | Thread Next
Andy Lester
June 10, 2008 08:47
Re: New CPANTS metrics
Message ID:

On Jun 10, 2008, at 10:41 AM, David Cantrell wrote:

> If you see no value in it, just ignore it.  I'm sure it will do  
> wonders
> for your blood pressure.

I guess that's my very point.  Here's this entire subsystem that  
exists to supposedly give information to authors and potential users  
about the relative quality of the code, and yet the attitude that  
comes out is "Eh, we like it, you don't have to like it."

Take a lesson from Perl::Critic and explain the reasoning behind the  

Reposting from 

Exactly. I look at and it tells  
me that many of my distributions fail certain checkboxes. So what?

Here it says WWW::Mechanize has no README. So what? Why do I as an  
author care?

It says that Mech's META.yml doesn't conform to a known spec (At least  
that's what I think the arcane code in the hover box tells me). So  
what? Why do I as an author care?

My META.yml doesn't have a license in it. So what? Why do I as an  
author care?

Perl::Critic::Bangs fails the test "proper_libs" which tells me " Move  
your *.pm files in a directory named 'lib'. The directory structure  
should look like 'lib/Your/' for a module named  
'Your::Module'." It should? Why do I as an author care if I don't put  
my .pm file in the lib/ directory?

It's only overstating slightly to say that the entire CPANTS structure  
seems to be built upon the premise of "These are things that should be  
a certain way because I say so," whoever "I" may happen to be.

That's not to say that the things checked for aren't worthwhile, but  
nothing says WHY they are worthwhile.

Further, and worse, it's presented as "You should just know this stuff  
and appreciate us for telling you."

Andy Lester => => => AIM:petdance

Thread Previous | Thread Next Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at | Group listing | About