Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from October 2012
Aristotle Pagaltzis <pagaltzis@gmx.de> writes: > * Peter Rabbitson <rabbit-p5p@rabbit.us> [2012-10-27 10:35]: >> What happened to the “ship it on CPAN and see” mantra? > > It worked. There are about half a dozen signature modules on CPAN, all > implementing variations of the same syntax. At which the point is the > “and see” part satisfied? Seventeen more variations? IMHO these many variations on CPAN show that, regarding syntax, a n+1'th variation will not solve people's needs. But it should if it gets into core. I agree with ribasushi in his general point, maybe not in the whole argument chain. I think all those micro features like s///r, //, keyword apis, or better working CPAN client defaults to make Perl + CPAN easier accessible, are in fact big achievements. In the end they made extending the core less neccessary. It's not exactly Jesse's vision but still what ribasushi wants in his polemic. And sub signatures are not yet in core. So, maybe p5p *is* on track? And it's just the syntax sirens singing near the cliffs...? Getting into core should add a clear benefit. I also don't see that for sub signatures. IMHO a problem is that lots of individuals hack on spreaded fronts. Why can't we combine different visions: Stevan's MOP proposal, Martin's sub signatures, Reini's type work, and (just to not only point to others) some benchmarking work? Kind regards, Steffen -- Steffen Schwigon <ss5@renormalist.net> Perl benchmarks <http://perlformance.net> Dresden Perl Mongers <http://dresden-pm.org/>Thread Previous | Thread Next