| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Everything to likeEverything to likePosted Mar 30, 2005 7:31 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304)In reply to: Everything to like by skvidal Parent article: Evidence that Python is advancing into the enterprise (NewsForge)
So because modules can become unmaintained we should have no central repository for modules that not everyone needs?
I smell a massive non sequitur.
(Log in to post comments)
Everything to like Posted Mar 30, 2005 13:55 UTC (Wed) by skvidal (subscriber, #3094) [Link] > So because modules can become unmaintained we should have no central> repository for modules that not everyone needs?
>I smell a massive non sequitur.
No, I just do not think CPAN is an answer to any set of problems. It's a disorganized mass of poorly maintained software. And all that it encourages is the use of obscure, unmaintained modules to solve problems with questionably exist.
I smell someone who has never maintained a system populated with these godforsaken items.
-sv
Everything to like Posted Mar 30, 2005 17:08 UTC (Wed) by b7j0c (subscriber, #27559) [Link] no, you're way off.
first name the broken modules.
second tell me how this invalidates a well built tool (CPAN.pm) for installing packages from the network.
third, tell me how a broken package invalidates the vast majority of excellent modules.
fourth tell me how NOT having a central repository assures me that python modules will be of higher quality. by the way telling me that you never need or use stuff outside of the core distribution is not one of the choices, sooner or later everyone needs 3rd party code.
i have seen this logic before from some python people - the fact that there is a broken module on CPAN invalidates the entire effort, and somehow not having a parallel effort insures a higher quality and availability of code for python.
look, i like python but the lack of a central repository and tools to address this repository is something that needs to be addressed.
|
|
||||||||||||