On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 11:57:15PM +0100, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
> * Rocco Caputo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-02-12 11:29]:
> > "Conveniently, I've written exactly the thing that provides the
> > features I need, in a way that's most convenient for my
> > purpose. Everything else pales by comparison, o
* Rocco Caputo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-02-12 11:29]:
> "Conveniently, I've written exactly the thing that provides the
> features I need, in a way that's most convenient for my
> purpose. Everything else pales by comparison, otherwise I
> would not have written it. Here, let me show you."
Are
Rocco Caputo writes:
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 08:19:14PM +, Smylers wrote:
>
> > Similarly an author doesn't need to understand all of the problems,
> > just so long as they state exactly what they are looking at,
> > preferably stated upfront. So the article starts by saying "I'm
> > looki
On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 08:19:14PM +, Smylers wrote:
>
> Similarly an author doesn't need to understand all of the problems, just
> so long as they state exactly what they are looking at, preferably
> stated upfront. So the article starts by saying "I'm looking for a
> something that does ...,
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, Smylers wrote:
> Let's get some good material written first, then worry about where to
> stick it ...
I'm coming in a bit late, but isn't this exactly what the various Perl
conferences are for? I say submit it, get it reviewed as worthy, present
it, then have it archived (onl
Delivered-To: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Finding the module you want (was: New module Mail::SendEasy)
From: Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 11 Feb 2004 10:25:07 +
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Smylers) writes:
> Let's get some good material
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Smylers) writes:
> Let's get some good material written first, then worry about where to
> stick it ...
Oh, I know a little Perl-related web site that would love any module
comparison articles you were to come up with.
--
The use of COBOL cripples the mind; its teaching should
Dave Rolsky writes:
> On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
>
> > * It's better to have comparative articles than module centric
> > reviews; they're also less susceptible to manipulation.
>
> I think these are great. The problem is they're a lot of work.
Indeed -- and that's what makes t
Simon Cozens writes:
> Hrm, there isn't an easy way to say this, but an issue with module
> reviews is that they're generally written by someone with a particular
> bias towards their own solution.
True. But:
* In order for you to have come to that conclusion, the bias must've
been obviou
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 h
Mark Stosberg writes:
> From another angle, I see the current problem with the rating system
> is not abuse-- I've never noticed any beyond people rating their own
> modules with 5 stars with reviews like "It's my module". It's primary
> downfall now is that it's simply not being used a lot. Makin
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, Simon Cozens wrote:
> Hrm, there isn't an easy way to say this, but an issue with module
> reviews is that they're generally written by someone with a particular
> bias towards their own solution. (I say that as someone who wrote one
> too ;)
>
> That's not necessarily a probl
* Mark Stosberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-02-10 16:31]:
> With Perl modules, I think there is typically less on the line
> than $100,000 contracts. I found in my own experience that
> people are generally trustworthy.
Precisely this lack of consequence actually makes me feel it
might be more probl
On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 09:03:27AM -0600, Dave Rolsky wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
>
> > * It's better to have comparative articles than module centric
> > reviews; they're also less susceptible to manipulation.
>
> I think these are great. The problem is they're a lot of
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dave Rolsky) writes:
> On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
>
> > * It's better to have comparative articles than module centric
> > reviews; they're also less susceptible to manipulation.
>
> I think these are great. The problem is they're a lot of work. I've
> written
Le 10 févr. 04, à 17:29, darren chamberlain a écrit :
* Eric Cholet [2004/02/10 17:27]:
Le 10 f?vr. 04, ? 16:16, darren chamberlain a ?crit :
I agree with you, but, if you are already investigating software to
handle a task, wouldn't you look at as many alternatives as possible?
I certainly woul
On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 05:27:11PM +0100, Eric Cholet wrote:
> Le 10 f?vr. 04, ? 16:16, darren chamberlain a ?crit :
>
> >I agree with you, but, if you are already investigating software to
> >handle a task, wouldn't you look at as many alternatives as possible?
>
> I certainly wouldn't. Rather,
* Eric Cholet [2004/02/10 17:27]:
> Le 10 f?vr. 04, ? 16:16, darren chamberlain a ?crit :
>
> >I agree with you, but, if you are already investigating software to
> >handle a task, wouldn't you look at as many alternatives as possible?
>
> I certainly wouldn't. Rather, I would look at as many al
Le 10 févr. 04, à 16:16, darren chamberlain a écrit :
I agree with you, but, if you are already investigating software to
handle a task, wouldn't you look at as many alternatives as possible?
I certainly wouldn't. Rather, I would look at as many alternatives
as necessary until I find the module th
* Dave Rolsky [2004/02/10 09:03]:
> On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
>
> > * It's better to have comparative articles than module centric
> > reviews; they're also less susceptible to manipulation.
>
> I think these are great. The problem is they're a lot of work. I've
> written two
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, Dave Rolsky wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
>
> > * It's better to have comparative articles than module centric
> > reviews; they're also less susceptible to manipulation.
>
> I think these are great. The problem is they're a lot of work. I've
> written
On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 09:59:32AM +0100, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
> * Mark Stosberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-02-09 15:26]:
> > I think the CPAN rating system could be of further help here as
> > well. It could be integrated with the search.cpan.org search
> > engine. The rating could appear on the re
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
> * It's better to have comparative articles than module centric
> reviews; they're also less susceptible to manipulation.
I think these are great. The problem is they're a lot of work. I've
written two (POOP and date/time) and I know Perrin wrote one
* Mark Stosberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-02-09 15:26]:
> I think the CPAN rating system could be of further help here as
> well. It could be integrated with the search.cpan.org search
> engine. The rating could appear on the results page, with
> top-rated modules appearing first. So, just searchi
24 matches
Mail list logo
