On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 05:53:20PM -0400, Walt Mankowski wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 09:40:57AM +0100, Dave Hodgkinson wrote:
> >
> > http://www.jwz.org/blog/2011/04/a-badge-for-the-software-industrys-failures/
> >
> > Or does he have a point?
>
> He's embarrassed that didn't think to ru
On 20 April 2011 22:53, Walt Mankowski wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 09:40:57AM +0100, Dave Hodgkinson wrote:
> >
> >
> http://www.jwz.org/blog/2011/04/a-badge-for-the-software-industrys-failures/
> >
> > Or does he have a point?
>
> He's embarrassed that didn't think to run "apt-get install
>
On 20 April 2011 20:51, Abigail wrote:
> I've been trying to tell people for many, many years that this is a good
> way to deliver applications, but Perl programmers seem to be stuck in the
> 60s; and the mere thought of having two copies of a text file takes too
> much costly diskspace.
>
> I re
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 09:40:57AM +0100, Dave Hodgkinson wrote:
>
> http://www.jwz.org/blog/2011/04/a-badge-for-the-software-industrys-failures/
>
> Or does he have a point?
He's embarrassed that didn't think to run "apt-get install libnet-twitter-perl"?
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 07:08:03PM +0100, Joel Bernstein wrote:
> On 20 April 2011 18:45, Pedro Figueiredo wrote:
> > On 20 Apr 2011, at 09:40, Dave Hodgkinson wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> http://www.jwz.org/blog/2011/04/a-badge-for-the-software-industrys-failures/
> >>
> >> Or does he have a point?
> >
>
Abigail wrote:
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 06:43:48PM +0200, Lars Thegler wrote:
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 10:40 AM, Dave Hodgkinson wrote:
http://www.jwz.org/blog/2011/04/a-badge-for-the-software-industrys-failures/
Or does he have a point?
No, code reuse is a *good* thing.
On 20 Apr 2011, at 19:08, Joel Bernstein wrote:
> On 20 April 2011 18:45, Pedro Figueiredo wrote:
>>
>> He might or might not have a point. The truth is, as someone working in a
>> Java shop where the core business is writing games, as long as this happens
>> whenever we need a web server for
On 20 April 2011 18:45, Pedro Figueiredo wrote:
> On 20 Apr 2011, at 09:40, Dave Hodgkinson wrote:
>
>>
>> http://www.jwz.org/blog/2011/04/a-badge-for-the-software-industrys-failures/
>>
>> Or does he have a point?
>
> He might or might not have a point. The truth is, as someone working in a
> Ja
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 18:01, Abigail wrote:
> But I've seen so much code that's needlessly convulated just so it can
> just some code (or worse, that the code can be reused)
I think they came up with a term for this back in the '70s: "Object
Oriented Programming".
Paul
PS http://en.wikipedia.
On 20 Apr 2011, at 09:40, Dave Hodgkinson wrote:
>
> http://www.jwz.org/blog/2011/04/a-badge-for-the-software-industrys-failures/
>
> Or does he have a point?
He might or might not have a point. The truth is, as someone working in a Java
shop where the core business is writing games, as long a
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 06:43:48PM +0200, Lars Thegler wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 10:40 AM, Dave Hodgkinson wrote:
> >
> > http://www.jwz.org/blog/2011/04/a-badge-for-the-software-industrys-failures/
> >
> > Or does he have a point?
>
> No, code reuse is a *good* thing.
Sometimes.
But I'v
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 10:40 AM, Dave Hodgkinson wrote:
>
> http://www.jwz.org/blog/2011/04/a-badge-for-the-software-industrys-failures/
>
> Or does he have a point?
No, code reuse is a *good* thing.
Yes, CPAN.pm sometimes fails.
Yes, TMTOWTDI means you have to make educated decisions about wh
On 20 April 2011 17:48, Jacqui Caren-home wrote:
>
> p.s. how about listing the depcount for a module.
> That way we can tell what is truly lite and what is a can-o-worms.
>
something like this
http://deps.cpantesters.org/?module=DateTime&perl=latest ? Granted, it
would be a benefit to have tha
On 04/20/2011 04:48 PM, Jacqui Caren-home wrote:
p.s. how about listing the depcount for a module.
That way we can tell what is truly lite and what is a can-o-worms.
You mean like cpandeps does?
http://deps.cpantesters.org/
Dave...
On 20/04/2011 13:29, Paul Makepeace wrote:
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 12:22, Bill Crawford wrote:
If (as recently happened) you discover a dependency chain that leads
to CPAN complaining that you need a newer perl because it's a core
module ... it gets extra annoying.
+1
cpan[1]> install Term:
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 15:40, Jason Clifford wrote:
> Does that mean your java team will have to re-invent lots of wheels or
> will they be using established (and proven) code libraries?
They'll probably be using software that doesn't contain a load of
'0.x' "releases"
On Wed, 2011-04-20 at 12:27 +0100, Andy Armstrong wrote:
> Short answer: we're writing most of our new services in Java with a toolchain
> that makes a lot of dependency management problems go away :)
Does that mean your java team will have to re-invent lots of wheels or
will they be using establ
On 20 April 2011 14:18, Simon Cozens wrote:
> On 20/04/2011 11:59, Peter Edwards wrote:
>> Go ahead and write CPAN modules requiring perl 5.12 and up to date Moose
>> then watch organisations throw Perl out the window and replace it with Java.
Is there anything better in Java? I'm currently looki
On 20/04/2011 11:59, Peter Edwards wrote:
> Go ahead and write CPAN modules requiring perl 5.12 and up to date Moose
> then watch organisations throw Perl out the window and replace it with Java.
Given that a lot of the push behind the Modern Perl cult is to make Perl more
Serious and Enterprise,
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 12:22:20PM +0100, Bill Crawford wrote:
> If (as recently happened) you discover a dependency chain that leads
> to CPAN complaining that you need a newer perl because it's a core
> module ... it gets extra annoying.
That particular bug was fixed a squillion years ago.
--
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 12:21:02PM +0100, Dominic Thoreau wrote:
> i did see the counterpoint to this a while back when putting in a
> module to CPAN for $past_employer.
>
> Not so much "huge dependency chain" as "there's more than one way to
> do it" being a problem.
This is why I don't like Ca
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 12:22, Bill Crawford wrote:
> If (as recently happened) you discover a dependency chain that leads
> to CPAN complaining that you need a newer perl because it's a core
> module ... it gets extra annoying.
+1
cpan[1]> install Term::ReadLine
The most recent version "1.07"
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Andy Armstrong wrote:
> On 20 Apr 2011, at 12:05, Jason Clifford wrote:
>> So how are you handling the requirement to maintain the code doing what
>> those many modules do?
>>
>> If you are not using a modular approach does that have any impact upon
>> the TCO of
On 20 Apr 2011, at 12:05, Jason Clifford wrote:
> So how are you handling the requirement to maintain the code doing what
> those many modules do?
>
> If you are not using a modular approach does that have any impact upon
> the TCO of maintaining the systems you are deploying?
Short answer: we're
On 20 April 2011 12:12, Abigail wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 12:06:27PM +0100, Bill Crawford wrote:
>> It is frustrating to try to get a recent version of anything at all
>> onto a server that's destined to sit in a data centre for five years,
>> and needs to have a relatively stable install
On 20 April 2011 11:42, Zbigniew Lukasiak wrote:
> I generally agree that bloat happens and perhaps we should think a bit more
> about that - but I don't think there are any simple solutions.
>
> The alternative to having one big, but mostly universal module (like
> DateTime) is to have many smal
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 01:01:10PM +0200, Abigail wrote:
> I think his point is: "when doing something trivial, don't have a huge
> dependency chain".
And it's to highlight this that I wrote CPANdeps!
--
David Cantrell | Bourgeois reactionary pig
"There's a hole in my bucket, dear Liza, de
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 12:06:27PM +0100, Bill Crawford wrote:
> On 20 April 2011 11:59, Peter Edwards wrote:
>
> > Go ahead and write CPAN modules requiring perl 5.12 and up to date Moose
> > then watch organisations throw Perl out the window and replace it with Java.
> > Like I'm seeing right n
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Simon Cozens wrote:
>
> On 20/04/2011 11:42, Zbigniew Lukasiak wrote:
> > The alternative to having one big, but mostly universal module (like
> > DateTime) is to have many small specialized modules.
>
> No, the alternative is to have the option of either using on
On Wed 20.Apr'11 at 13:01:10 +0200, Abigail wrote:
>
> I don't think that was jwz's point.
>
> I think his point is: "when doing something trivial, don't have a huge
> dependency chain".
"Easy things should be easy. Impossible things should be possible."
>
> Abigail
On 20 April 2011 11:59, Peter Edwards wrote:
> Go ahead and write CPAN modules requiring perl 5.12 and up to date Moose
> then watch organisations throw Perl out the window and replace it with Java.
> Like I'm seeing right now because they end up stuck requiring particular
> versions of libraries
On Wed, 2011-04-20 at 11:48 +0100, Andy Armstrong wrote:
> Yup - completely agree. This is one of the reasons I like the ::Tiny
> namespace so much.
>
> And the transient dependency explosion - and subsequent burden of updating
> those dependencies - i.e. the TCO of a Perl app - is the main reas
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 12:42:12PM +0200, Zbigniew Lukasiak wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 12:05 PM, Simon Cozens wrote:
>
> > On 20/04/2011 09:40, Dave Hodgkinson wrote:
> > > Or does he have a point?
> >
> > He completely has a point. CPAN developers right now seem to have a strong
> > predile
On 20 April 2011 11:13, Jesse Vincent wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 09:40:57AM +0100, Dave Hodgkinson wrote:
> >
> http://www.jwz.org/blog/2011/04/a-badge-for-the-software-industrys-failures/
> >
> > Or does he have a point?
>
> He has a point.
>
>
Gosh that's timely: my talk last week at htt
On 20/04/2011 11:42, Zbigniew Lukasiak wrote:
> The alternative to having one big, but mostly universal module (like
> DateTime) is to have many small specialized modules.
No, the alternative is to have the option of either using one big universal
module *or* many small specialized modules. A comp
On 20 Apr 2011, at 11:05, Simon Cozens wrote:
> I agree with him that doesn't seem to be a culture of simplicity.
Yup - completely agree. This is one of the reasons I like the ::Tiny namespace
so much.
And the transient dependency explosion - and subsequent burden of updating
those dependencies
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 12:05 PM, Simon Cozens wrote:
> On 20/04/2011 09:40, Dave Hodgkinson wrote:
> > Or does he have a point?
>
> He completely has a point. CPAN developers right now seem to have a strong
> predilection for throwing the kitchen sink into modules that really don't
> need
> it. (
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 09:40:57AM +0100, Dave Hodgkinson wrote:
>
> http://www.jwz.org/blog/2011/04/a-badge-for-the-software-industrys-failures/
>
> Or does he have a point?
He has a point.
--
On 20/04/2011 09:40, Dave Hodgkinson wrote:
> Or does he have a point?
He completely has a point. CPAN developers right now seem to have a strong
predilection for throwing the kitchen sink into modules that really don't need
it. ("You want to parse dates, you use DateTime." Um, no, not necessarily
On 20 April 2011 10:03, Paul Makepeace wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 09:40, Dave Hodgkinson wrote:
>>
>> http://www.jwz.org/blog/2011/04/a-badge-for-the-software-industrys-failures/
>>
>> Or does he have a point?
>>
>
> Key is
> http://www.jwz.org/blog/2011/04/a-badge-for-the-software-industr
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 09:40, Dave Hodgkinson wrote:
>
> http://www.jwz.org/blog/2011/04/a-badge-for-the-software-industrys-failures/
>
> Or does he have a point?
>
Key is
http://www.jwz.org/blog/2011/04/a-badge-for-the-software-industrys-failures/#comment-90218
P
http://www.jwz.org/blog/2011/04/a-badge-for-the-software-industrys-failures/
Or does he have a point?
42 matches
Mail list logo
