develooper Front page | perl.qa | Postings from March 2005

Re: Test::META

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Ofer Nave
Date:
March 28, 2005 18:05
Subject:
Re: Test::META
Message ID:
4248B7DF.3040200@shopzilla.com
Michael G Schwern wrote:

>On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 07:52:22PM -0500, Christopher H. Laco wrote:
>  
>
>>Michael G Schwern wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>Until such time as there are test_* flags, one should take a pragmatic 
>>>view.
>>>And that view is "what is going to cause the least amount of hassle for
>>>those who want to install my module" because they don't know nor care about
>>>the internal mechanics.  
>>>      
>>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>Sticking with ExtUtils::MakeMaker. :-)
>>[But where's the fun in that.]
>>    
>>
>
>I know you're joking, but you've flipped my rant switch.
>
>*****************************************************************************
>The following is rant.  Please scale the hyperbole down to an acceptable size 
>*****************************************************************************
>
>I hear a lot of complaints about Module::Build of this form:
>"Module::Build can do X and Y but it can't do Z.  I'm switching back to
> MakeMaker!"
>
>Often, MakeMaker can't do Z either, or even X and Y!  Or it takes so much
>hackery to get MM to do X, Y and Z that you could have patched MB nine times
>over in the time it took to get MM to do it.
>
>For example, the dependency nits we've been discussing.
>
>There's no point here except maybe to explain why my jaw is so often on the
>floor listening to Module::Build vs MakeMaker comparisons.
>
>Maybe there is a point, and I'm going to fly off into analogy here.
>
>Module::Build is like a female politian.
>
>What?
>
>Module::Build is like a female politian.  Or to be even more broad, a non-
>white, male, christian, above the age of 35 politian.
>
>MakeMaker is the old man of Perl.  Its "known, working technology" as someone
>on Perlmonks once said.  We're willing to give it every benefit of the doubt
>because we're so comfortable with its many, many, many quirks and it "works"
>if you are running Unix, not trying to link in XS code and not doing anything 
>too complicated.
>
>But those who understand how MakeMaker really works are horrified by it.
>
>Module::Build, otoh, is new, clean and potentially infinitely better than
>MakeMaker.  So many features that I have to reject for MakeMaker because it
>would break something or require huge amounts of work and testing would be
>almost trivial in MB.  And I point that out all the time.  And that people
>should go spend their time on MB.  With a fraction of the effort *I alone*
>have to spend on MakeMaker, Module::Build could blow past it in terms of
>functionality and reliability.
>
>But it hasn't.  And I only see a small number of people patching 
>Module::Build.  And there's tons of low hanging fruit available.
>
>What's going on here?  One thing I see going on is that people are holding
>Module::Build up to rediculously high standards.  Much, much higher than
>MakeMaker ever was.  Anything Module::Build tries to do people still nit-pick
>it to death, and here's the horrible part, they don't generate much patches.
>
>Take dependency resolution.  MakeMaker has one way to specify a dependency.
>MB has a whole spectrum.  And yet people still want to fall back to MM's
>low resolution dep system because MB's isn't quite high enough.
>
>Take create_makefile_pl.  Module::Build bends over backwards to be compatible
>with MakeMaker.  It offers not one but THREE different methods of providing
>that.  Hell, it'll even generate a Makefile.PL that will download MB for you!
>And yet when people encounter small problems with it the response isn't
>"Here's a patch" or even "I'll just work around that for now".  No, its
>"I'm going back to MakeMaker" where they'll likely have to do more work and
>more work arounds to achieve the same effect.
>
>Module::Build is the female politian of Perl.  It has to do things nine times
>better than MakeMaker to be seen as being equal.  Its failures are jumped
>all over while MakeMaker's failures are forgiven.  And despite ringing
>endorsements from people who really should know, such as ME, THE MAINTAINER
>OF MAKEMAKER AND KNOWLEDGABLE PERSON OF HOW PERL MODULES REALLY GET BUILT AND 
>INSTALLED, I can't seem to get people to put their effort into patching
>MB rather than hacking around MM.  Folks don't seem to want to patch MB
>despite it being demonstrated as being trivial compared to MM.  I ported
>MB to VMS in a night!  I made it work on MacOS Classic better than MM ever
>did IN THE SAME NIGHT!  I recently threw away all the MacOS Classic code in
>MakeMaker because it was such a disaster and never really worked anyway.
>MakeMaker 6.26 went through TWELVE alphas trying to get VMS to work properly.
>
>*deep breaths*
>
>The point is this.
>
>* Give MB a chance.
>* When you encounter a problem in MB, try to patch it.
>* Do not expect Ken and Randy to do all the work for you.
>* Do not immediately run back to the warm, familiar, utterly flawed embrace 
>  of MakeMaker.
>
>Thank you.  This has been a rant.
>
>  
>
Yes, sir!

(I love a good rant.)

-ofer

Thread Previous | Thread Next


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About