At 10:20 13/03/2001, you wrote:
>On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 10:15:29AM +0000, Greg McCarroll wrote:
> > not read, bought! theres the big catch
> > still we've done this argument several times and at the end of the day
> > people want to be able to just grab a piece of ``perl cgi software''
> > and run it on their site. until there is something better available
> > with as much visibility, matt still gets a tiny tiny tiny bit of credit
> > thats all imho, but then again i'm in far too good a mood today
>
>So what goes wrong every time someone else tries to setup an equivalent
>archive of better code? I've seen it tried many times and it never works
>out...
I guess the problem is that you could create an archive of CGI programs
written by the best Perl programmers in the world but people would _still_
find Matt's scripts first.
There's a marketing battle that needs to be fought first. We need, somehow,
to ensure that newbie CGI programmers read criticisms of Matt's scripts
_before_ they find Matt's Script Archive. And I don't know how you're going
to undo five years of misinformation and achieve that.
It's an important battle too, as each person that downloads an installs
Matt's scripts is one more person who will eventually decide that Perl is
too flakey and difficult to understand for serious use.
Dave...
--
<http://www.dave.org.uk> SMS: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<plug>Data Munging with Perl <http://www.manning.com/cross/></plug>
