* Mark Overmeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-01-29 02:12]: > But of course, he feels the need to insult other people's work > to promote his own. It's his way of gaining importance.
I don't think he's insulting in order to promote so much as simply being vocal about his dissatisfaction with existing wheels. He could certainly have done with a calmer tone, though, and I can definitely see how someone being the target of such criticism would not take kindly to it. Unfortunately I really know nothing about either Mail::Box, even though I have looked at it before. From that looking, however, I would say it's easy to see how someone could perceive it as overengineered. Whether that's necessary is a matter of perspective. Simon could have pointed out the negatives and even voiced his opinion without stating his judgement as absolute. Sometimes complexity is called for -- he even mentions Email::Simple is a 9 times out of 10 solution. On the other hand, it's obvious you're quite attached to your overall design. Personally, I think the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle ground. All the modules I've grown really fond of offer a simple way to get the 9 cases out of 10 out of the way but *can* reveal more complexity if desired or necessary. From what I gathered, both Mail::Box and Email::Simple fail this principle -- either on one end of the complexity scale or the other. -- Regards, Aristotle "If you can't laugh at yourself, you don't take life seriously enough."
