Re: better SEE ALSO sections (was: Re: Introduction Letter)
On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 04:05:09PM -0500, Mark Stosberg ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I was hoping for more of a comparison with Data::Page, which is similar but already established. AND at 100% Devel::Cover coverage, thanks to yours truly! :-) xoxo, Andy -- Andy Lester = [EMAIL PROTECTED] = www.petdance.com = AIM:petdance
Re: better SEE ALSO sections
Andy Lester wrote: On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 04:05:09PM -0500, Mark Stosberg ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I was hoping for more of a comparison with Data::Page, which is similar but already established. AND at 100% Devel::Cover coverage, thanks to yours truly! :-) xoxo, Andy I've never heard of Devel::Cover, so I just looked it up - BAD ASS! Arg. I've been using perl since 1999, and I still haven't integrated what many of you would consider the core set of tools into my personal toolbox. Many of the modules you use on a daily basis I might not have even heard of before. I sometimes wish there was a simple check list - here's the list of modules you should learn, in this order, before you can call yourself a professional perl programmer. Well, I'm off to learn the Test::* libraries. It's about time, I say. -ofer
Re: better SEE ALSO sections
A. Pagaltzis wrote: * Ofer Nave [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-02-28 22:55]: I've been thinking for a while that it would be great to have a CPAN wiki for things like: [...] I enjoyed writing the Parallel::* comparison, and I believe it is useful, but honestly, it doesn't belong in the SEE ALSO section of my module. It belongs someplace neutral, someplace that can be maintained and expanded by the whole community. This is somewhat of a permathread on this list. It has been a topic of discussion several times before in the time I've been subscribed (I sort of kicked off one them). So far nothing tangible and successful has really come from it. There's the recently opened CPAN::Forum may or may not offer something useful. There is some kind of unofficial CPAN wiki somewhere, I think. The problem is that documents like your (excellent) comparison require a lot of time and effort. They don't happen easily or naturally. Someone has to care enough. I openly admit I haven't invested much effort in developing an idea and/or pursuing one; and I conclude that I'm the norm, since not much is happening. The problem is, this is a hard problem to solve. Really, the format doesn't matter, be it a wiki, Perlmonks section, perl.org subsite, regular web forum, mailing list, namespace for review PODs on CPAN, or whichever of the myriad of other suggestions. It simply requires a lot of volunteers willing to do a lot of work to study modules in depth, compare them, and write up their experiences. Where the writeups end up is irrelevant so long as they have a coherent location they can be referred from; the hard part is the process of getting those writeups prepared and written. *That*'s why we still don't have a solution. It's not a technical problem. Regards, Valid points, but I disagree on one - I think it IS partly a technical problem. Jimmy Wales tried to start a free online encyclopedia called Nupedia before Wikipedia was a twinkly in his eye, and it failed miserably after getting 24 articles total. The problem was a technical one - you had to submit articles, have them reviewed and approved, etc. When Wikipedia was launched, it had 1000 articles within a month, because the form factor was right - want to change something? The edit button is right at the top. Go for it. Making something easier makes it more likely that people will do it. You might have only 5 volunteers that are willing to submit reviews like the one I wrote as patches to existing POD. But I bet you have 50 who are willing to add notes about modules they know about to existing reviews on a whim while reading the existing review page. You say It simply requires a lot of volunteers. As difficulty goes down, volunteers appear. They're already there, but they're below the current threshold. Don't recruit - lower the threshold. And a good domain name helps. Like wiki.cpan.org. It takes all of two minutes to install MediaWiki. I just did it, and I'm a poor excuse for a sysadmin. BTW-Part of the problem is that there is SO much already out there, and it's overwhelming, so some people just get turned off by not know where to start or what it all means. Would be nice to see one big map with all major perl rescoures (in reverse domain name order): com cpanforum.com perl.oreilly.com perl.com perldoc.com theperlreview.com tpj.com org perl.apache.org cpan.org bookmarks.cpan.org kobesearch.cpan.org lists.cpan.org mirrors.cpan.org pause.cpan.org ratings.cpan.org search.cpan.org testers.cpan.org parrotcode.org perl.org apprentice.perl.org archive.perl.org books.perl.org bugs.perl.org dbi.perl.org dev.perl.org faq.perl.org history.perl.org jobs.perl.org lists.perl.org nntp.perl.org planet.perl.org use.perl.org perlfoundation.org perldoc.perldrunks.org perlmonks.org pm.org poniecode.org yapc.org This is just me fooling around for 15 minutes trying to come up with everything I can find that is official or quasi-official. I'm sure I missed a few lesser-known subdomains of perl.org and cpan.org. As an intermediate perl programmer with a strong desire to learn what's out there, and see how I can participate in the perl community, I find this all very overwhelming. I can probably write one line descriptions of more than half the sites listed above, but it has taken months of web surfing and hanging out to be able to do just that, and be able to skim through that list with a partial sense of understanding, instead of seeing it all blur into one confusing mess. -ofer
a Perl/CPAN wiki (was: Re: better SEE ALSO sections)
On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 04:36:34PM -0800, Ofer Nave wrote: Valid points, but I disagree on one - I think it IS partly a technical problem. Jimmy Wales tried to start a free online encyclopedia called Nupedia before Wikipedia was a twinkly in his eye, and it failed miserably after getting 24 articles total. The problem was a technical one - you had to submit articles, have them reviewed and approved, etc. When Wikipedia was launched, it had 1000 articles within a month, because the form factor was right - want to change something? The edit button is right at the top. Go for it. I agree that the wiki format can be a great one for creating a low barrier to entry for collaborative documentation writing. I've witnessed work really well for darcs ( http://www.scannedinavian.org/DarcsWiki/ ) and CGI::Application. ( http://www.cgi-app.org/ ). After working a good deal on both of those wikis, I've convinced that even more subtle details of the format can make a different. The darcs wiki is much more pleasant to work on-- it feels easier to use. I'm more likely to contribute there. I'm rather satisifed as user of that software-- it's running the MoinMoin wiki: http://moinmoin.wikiwikiweb.de/ So what does it take to get wiki.cpan.org or wiki.perl.org set up? I suppose a first order of business would be to arrange hosting space, and one more volunteers to set up and administer the wiki. Mark -- http://mark.stosberg.com/
Re: better SEE ALSO sections
--- Ofer Nave wrote: Most importantly... which one do the senior perl guys rely on? If Randal Schwartz and Dave Rolsky use a module regularly and can't imagine living without it, then that's probably the module I should be learning if I want to be a better programming. I don't know about Randal and Dave, but Mark Fowler lists his favourites in a delightful format at: http://www.perladvent.org/ And the Phalanx 100 at: http://qa.perl.org/phalanx/ lists the 100 most popular CPAN modules. Then there's gav's CPAN wiki http://cpan.thegav.com/ which seems fairly quiet. Perl Monks have a module review section: http://www.perlmonks.org/?node=Module%20Reviews which is also fairly quiet (as is Simon's code review ladder). The bottom line is that module reviews are time-consuming and you won't find many people with the time to do it. A better idea is to isolate small pieces of your module code that you're unhappy with and post multiple small questions to Perl Monks. Shamless plug: since you are a relative newbie, you might find this article: http://www.perlmonks.org/?node_id=418891 an interesting read, especially the section Testability and Test Suite. /-\ Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com
Re: better SEE ALSO sections
Andrew Savige wrote: Shamless plug: since you are a relative newbie, you might find this article: http://www.perlmonks.org/?node_id=418891 an interesting read, especially the section Testability and Test Suite. Also check out the perl-qa mailing list for all kinds of testing quality issues. http://lists.perl.org/showlist.cgi?name=perl-qa
Re: better SEE ALSO sections
Hi, plug http::/www.cpanforum.com while not a wiki tries (in the TODO list at least) answer some of what you are looking for. Specifically I though of setting up - with the help of the users - groups of moudules or categorizes from within th list of all the modules on CPAN and then allow discussion per such larger group. I think these groups could be overlapping as there are modules that will fit several categories. While it is not a wiki and does not allow co-editing of documents it can let you write articles comparing sets of similarly themed/purposed modules. Gabor
