On Mon, 3 Feb 2003, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 12:46:43PM +0000, Andy Wardley wrote:
> > Shevek wrote:
>
> > > What we ought to do is actually support and advertise the stronger
> > > packages we have available to us. I think that there is far too much
> > > religion involved with choice. Choice should involve a rational and
> > > complete evaluation of all the existing options, not just "write another
> > > one and hope it comes out better".
> >
> > We shouldn't have to choose the "best" packages because there are no
> > "best" packages. Each has different strengths and weaknesses.
>
> I think you're talking cross purposes here (and also both correct)
>
> There is no single "best" package for each class of task. But I'm confident
> that where there are many modules for the same task, quite a few are not
> best for any permutation of criteria, however obscure.
I agree entirely but I think it's stronger than that. There seems a
mentality that "A templating system doth a website management system make"
rather in the undergraduate sense that "a parser doth a compiler make".
This simply isn't true.
There are some really hard problems out there, like doing the FULL
database management system. This is done partially by Interchange, and
frankly much better by most Java solutions. Perl has twenty
implementations of the easy bit.
This mail was written mostly between the lines.
S.
--
Shevek
I am the Borg.
sub AUTOLOAD{my$i=$AUTOLOAD;my$x=shift;$i=~s/^.*://;print"$x\n";eval
qq{*$AUTOLOAD=sub{my\$x=shift;return unless \$x%$i;&{$x}(\$x);};};}
foreach my $i (3..65535) { &{'2'}($i); }
