A. Pagaltzis writes: > I had an idea ... > > * It's better to have comparative articles than module centric > reviews; they're also less susceptible to manipulation.
Exactly: sometimes I find an article helpful even though I disagree with the author's conclusions because along the way he/she highlighted one or more specific differences (it's just that I and the author disagree about that they are ...) > * Maybe we could have a bunch of comparative articles I don't think there's much point in planning the infrastructure for dealing with a "bunch" of comparative articles: they are awkward -- and very time-consuming -- to write. If we get to a situation where we're swamped by useful comparisons but no useful way to arrange them, then _that's_ when we need to discuss infrastructure. But doing so until then would be premature (and a waste of time that could be spent writing comparison articles). > * Wait, there's already a way to put results in the search engine > -- namely, uploading a distribution.. > > How about putting writing such comparative articles and posting > them under Introduction:: ? That might be seen as an abuse of Cpan. Mirrors around the world are kindly offering space for Perl modules and haven't agreed to anything else. (That's one of the reasons why requests to put other sorts of things on there have been turned down.) People might object if Cpan starts being used for people to start uploading political propaganda. (Yes, I know that you were suggesting objective comparative reviews, which are not political propaganda -- but as has recently been seen on this list, that won't necessarily prevent somebody else taking offence at it and seeing it as such.) There's also the risk that other people will start uploading all sorts of opinion pieces on various topics tentatively related to Perl, and then the actual point of Cpan, the modules, gets lost among all the ranting and bickering. Let's get some good material written first, then worry about where to stick it ... Smylers
