Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from April 2010
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 12:06:03PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 08:46:19AM +0200, Steffen Mueller wrote:
>
> > In another mail, you argued that the maintenance burden of code that
> > nobody touched in the past ten years can't be all that high. But maybe
> > it should be? If the purported replacement modules have been changed in
> > the meantime, isn't there a non-zero chance that the old tools have bugs
> > going unnoticed? Nobody is going to even look at them to check. I think
> > that is a pretty strong reason to NOT ship them in new releases.
>
> Talking of old buggy tools, how about File::Copy? It's in core, not
> deprecated, last updated in 1996, and known to be buggy. For those who
> rely on its current behaviour, it would be trivial to CPANise. IMO it's
> a far better candidate for deprecation than Class::ISA is.
>
Last updated in 1996? I beg to differ.
Borrowing some code from a cow orker, I get:
$ git blame -wM Copy.pm | perl -anle '/\b((19|20)[0-9]{2})-/ && print $1' | sort | uniq -c
254 1996
4 1997
18 1998
6 1999
8 2000
80 2001
15 2002
6 2003
2 2004
28 2005
9 2006
52 2007
23 2008
143 2009
3 2010
> See, for example, this post from 2005:
> http://abigail1.hates-software.com/2005/09/21/0692681a.html
While I maintain that 'system "cp", "file1", "file2"' is to be preferred
over "File::Copy::copy", some of the issues addressed in the article you
quote have actually been fixed.
Abigail
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next