5 ms·

Err.. yeah - what do you think after whom gems etc. are modeled? :) Haskell's system is called "hackage" for example and "R" has its "CRAN" and so on. Though

by Su-Shee 16y ago

Err.. yeah - what do you think after whom gems etc. are modeled? :) Haskell's system is called "hackage" for example and "R" has its "CRAN" and so on. Though it's really no fair comparison as CPAN contains what.. 89033 modules? http://search.cpan.org/ http://search.cpan.org/

microtherion 16y ago
And CPAN itself was modeled after CTAN, as far as I recall...
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
danieldon 16y ago
89033 modules Only 21694 distributions, though. The analogue in Ruby is a gem and RubyGems already has 19502.
- ldng 16y ago
  Ok. Shitload of lib err bricks. Great. Where are the prefab houses (frameworks) that help you get the thing done ... fast ? Perl has building blocks but lacks known products. Either finished products you just have to configure (like Drupal or Wordpress) or higher level building blocks (say Rails) that help you get where you want to get faster. Note I didn't say there is not such product/framework, just, as the articles says, they are not promoted/known.
  - Mithaldu 16y ago
    Mojolicious, Dancer, Catalyst (biggest and most enterprise one), CGI::Application, Jifty. There's a whole bunch of them, with different design goals or philosophies.
    - ldng 16y ago
      I didn't there wasn't, just that the need better promotion. Call it screencast if you wish. They need Promotive Passionate Users. [edit] I'm gonna pick a little bit on Catalyst and do a quick surface review at website level from a non-Perlist POV. Homepage : ok, looks nice. Documentation : uuh ! Dry redirect to CPAN. First impression before reading, it's not the doc, it's the API doc. Ah, wait a second, it _is_ the doc. Not very appealing and some things are so not obvious that it takes a note to understand it like "Note: Click on the heading in the previous line to jump to the actual chapter. Below is a "table of contents" for this chapter." Download : Again directly to CPAN, at first sight confusingly looks like an API doc. For newcomers not versed in Perl it is not very friendly. Community : not much to say, a good wiki with apparently interesting stuff to read. But the first thing you see is that the "Why Catalyst is an excellent web application framework?" is an empty page. The perl community has every reason to be proud of CPAN. It's great tool but it's not the answer to everything. It's all therem but it lacks the last mile, the 20% of polish to make it a tad more friendly/attractive. It's the whole point of the article I think. It's not to criticize Perl, just to say it needs a better marketing strategy.
swombat 16y ago
Just because it was modelled after CPAN doesn't mean it's not better. I'm not very familiar with PyPi since I'm not a Python programmer, but Gems pretty much work exactly like they should. Especially when you throw RVM into the mix.
- btilly 16y ago
  Ruby gems by default don't run unit tests. If you care about reliable software, this is a bad thing compared to CPAN.
loewenskind 16y ago
>Though it's really no fair comparison as CPAN contains what.. 89033 modules? Why do people keep trotting out this stupid pointless number. How much of that is duplication? How much of it is crap? How much of it is literally toys (e.g. ACME stuff)? In any case, Java has vastly, vastly more so any language that runs on the JVM automatically beats perl here. 99% of programmers will never notice any functionality missing in Ruby or Python that CPAN has.
- chromatic 16y ago
  Why do people keep trotting out this stupid pointless number. Metcalfe's Law. The value of the CPAN increases dramatically with every addition, especially because of the maturity of the entire CPAN infrastructure: CPAN testers, CPANTS, annotations, reviews, dependency tracking, BackPAN tracking, gitpan, linked documentation, et cetera.
  - loewenskind 16y ago
    >CPAN increases dramatically with every addition Demonstrably nonsense. Let me add a new module called ACME::DoNothing. What have I increased besides disk space and a meaningless module count?
    - chromatic 16y ago
      You've tested the entire CPAN ecosystem, as well as the ability of the ecosystem to identify and remove harmful contributions, if said contribution is in fact harmful.
      - loewenskind 16y ago
        I'll concede that that is very good. And I'll also concede that I can't think of any other systems that do this as well as CPAN (if at all). But my point remains that for 99% of developers we want a library that provides functionality (e.g. an ORM for a common database) and in that respect CPAN will only have an advantage for very obscure requirements. And even then it still loses to Java. The testing stuff is good and it's the direction everyone should be going but not having it obviously isn't too much of a problem because so few systems currently have it (CPAN was successful long before it had it as well).

by Su-Shee 16y ago

microtherion 16y ago

And CPAN itself was modeled after CTAN, as far as I recall...

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

danieldon 16y ago

89033 modules Only 21694 distributions, though. The analogue in Ruby is a gem and RubyGems already has 19502.

ldng 16y ago
Ok. Shitload of lib err bricks. Great. Where are the prefab houses (frameworks) that help you get the thing done ... fast ? Perl has building blocks but lacks known products. Either finished products you just have to configure (like Drupal or Wordpress) or higher level building blocks (say Rails) that help you get where you want to get faster. Note I didn't say there is not such product/framework, just, as the articles says, they are not promoted/known.
- Mithaldu 16y ago
  Mojolicious, Dancer, Catalyst (biggest and most enterprise one), CGI::Application, Jifty. There's a whole bunch of them, with different design goals or philosophies.
  - ldng 16y ago
    I didn't there wasn't, just that the need better promotion. Call it screencast if you wish. They need Promotive Passionate Users. [edit] I'm gonna pick a little bit on Catalyst and do a quick surface review at website level from a non-Perlist POV. Homepage : ok, looks nice. Documentation : uuh ! Dry redirect to CPAN. First impression before reading, it's not the doc, it's the API doc. Ah, wait a second, it _is_ the doc. Not very appealing and some things are so not obvious that it takes a note to understand it like "Note: Click on the heading in the previous line to jump to the actual chapter. Below is a "table of contents" for this chapter." Download : Again directly to CPAN, at first sight confusingly looks like an API doc. For newcomers not versed in Perl it is not very friendly. Community : not much to say, a good wiki with apparently interesting stuff to read. But the first thing you see is that the "Why Catalyst is an excellent web application framework?" is an empty page. The perl community has every reason to be proud of CPAN. It's great tool but it's not the answer to everything. It's all therem but it lacks the last mile, the 20% of polish to make it a tad more friendly/attractive. It's the whole point of the article I think. It's not to criticize Perl, just to say it needs a better marketing strategy.

swombat 16y ago

Just because it was modelled after CPAN doesn't mean it's not better. I'm not very familiar with PyPi since I'm not a Python programmer, but Gems pretty much work exactly like they should. Especially when you throw RVM into the mix.

btilly 16y ago
Ruby gems by default don't run unit tests. If you care about reliable software, this is a bad thing compared to CPAN.

loewenskind 16y ago

>Though it's really no fair comparison as CPAN contains what.. 89033 modules? Why do people keep trotting out this stupid pointless number. How much of that is duplication? How much of it is crap? How much of it is literally toys (e.g. ACME stuff)? In any case, Java has vastly, vastly more so any language that runs on the JVM automatically beats perl here. 99% of programmers will never notice any functionality missing in Ruby or Python that CPAN has.

chromatic 16y ago
Why do people keep trotting out this stupid pointless number. Metcalfe's Law. The value of the CPAN increases dramatically with every addition, especially because of the maturity of the entire CPAN infrastructure: CPAN testers, CPANTS, annotations, reviews, dependency tracking, BackPAN tracking, gitpan, linked documentation, et cetera.
- loewenskind 16y ago
  >CPAN increases dramatically with every addition Demonstrably nonsense. Let me add a new module called ACME::DoNothing. What have I increased besides disk space and a meaningless module count?
  - chromatic 16y ago
    You've tested the entire CPAN ecosystem, as well as the ability of the ecosystem to identify and remove harmful contributions, if said contribution is in fact harmful.
    - loewenskind 16y ago
      I'll concede that that is very good. And I'll also concede that I can't think of any other systems that do this as well as CPAN (if at all). But my point remains that for 99% of developers we want a library that provides functionality (e.g. an ORM for a common database) and in that respect CPAN will only have an advantage for very obscure requirements. And even then it still loses to Java. The testing stuff is good and it's the direction everyone should be going but not having it obviously isn't too much of a problem because so few systems currently have it (CPAN was successful long before it had it as well).