* On Thu, Apr 03 2008, Dave Rolsky wrote: > On Thu, 3 Apr 2008, John M. Gamble wrote: >> Okay, that was uncalled for. It wasn't incoherent, and it wasn't a >> rant, and trying to be dismissive like that doesn't help even if the >> thesis was wrong. I agree that the problems listed mostly aren't >> problems (on the other hand, I'm not going to pretend Time::Cube >> didn't happen). Furthermore, the best solutions to the perceived >> problems are patch first, apply for co-ownership second. > > I agree, Jon (R), there's no call to be so rude.
I apologize. I get upset when people feel they are *entitled* to CPAN modules (or the CPAN, or Perl, or Linux, or emacs, ...). It shows that they don't really understand the open source movement. The open source movement is about sharing, not taking. People that take and never give back aren't worth being nice to. CPAN is an all volunteer effort. In an ideal world, every module would be perfect. We don't live in an ideal world. The only way to make modules better is for *you* to make them better. I agree that it's annoying to find an almost perfect module on CPAN, except for just this one thing. But it would be a lot more annoying to have nothing at all. (Even stubs are useful; it shows someone else is interested in the topic, and it gives you a good name.) Anyway, when I find a bug or missing feature in a module I want to use, I consider myself personally responsible for that problem. If I want a feature so badly, why don't I write it myself? (I think other people should consider adopting this attitude :) If they do, there will be more coding and less whining on mailing lists, which is always good.) Regards, Jonathan Rockway -- print just => another => perl => hacker => if $,=$"
