Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?

[prev] [thread] [next] [Date index for 2005/07/18]

From: Tony Bowden
Subject: Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Date: 18:36 on 18 Jul 2005
On Mon, Jul 18, 2005 at 01:54:13PM -0400, Brett Sanger wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2005 at 06:34:04PM +0100, Tony Bowden wrote:
> > I think there's certainly a implication, even if explicitly denounced,
> > that low kwalitee = low value.
> Hmm.  Certainly higher kwalitee = higher value.  Not because the base
> code is necessarity better, but that it is that much easier to use, and
> that much more accessible.

Yes, but Module A may have a Quality Score of 500 and a Kwalitee Score
of 2, compared to Module B with a Quality Score of 10 and Kwalitee
Score of 20.[1]

Both modules could increase their value by increasing their kwalitee,
but Module B isn't going to catch up with Module A no matter how much
kwalitee wrangling the author does. But based on many of the mechanisms
people seem to use to decide whether to use code or not, many more
people will prefer Module B.

I'm a big believer in QA and testing and all of those things. But
they're not the end goal. 

> But really, you aren't arguing that it SHOULD have bad tests or poor
> documentation.  You're arguing one or more of:
> a) The lack does not mean the code isn't useful
> b) Uploading it to CPAN without those does not diminish your abilities as
> a developer

Mostly (a). 

> So the code would be more accessible with the improvements, but you
> don't necessarily have the time or interest to do so.  I don't see the
> problem with that, it is thus the phrase "patches welcome" was born.

But patches aren't even really welcome. I had to write the code for
$job. It's served its purpse. I'm done with it. In the past I'd have
released it to CPAN anyway, just in case anyone else found it useful.
Now I'm unlikely to.

If there were a way for other people to contribute tests and docs and
all the supporting accoutrements *without me having to do anything*
maybe that would be useful.

I suspect there's a wiki-esque model for software out there somewhere
that no-one's really found yet.


> How much of that traffic comes to by virtue that you're a recognized
> name from CPAN?  Just a thought.

A substantial amount of it. I'm aware of that. But the interest in
the Book List code in particular doesn't seem to have come much from those 
quarters. I seem to have have about 4 or 5 distinct readership groups
from my involvement in various disparate spheres, but a lot of people
seem to have come across that code from links from outside all of those,
and from straightforward google searches.

> To me, CPAN is about making code accessible.  You obviously believe the
> code is accessible without CPAN.  I tend to distrust code that doesn't
> make it to CPAN.  We may just have to agree to disagree there.

I think I'm missing something in this logic though. The inferrence is
that you *do* trust code that is on CPAN. But pretty much everyone
agrees that there's a huge amount of "bad code" on CPAN. So I assume you
either mean something different by "trust", or that your sentence on
distrusting non-CPAN code is really just mirrored by a distrust for CPAN
code too.

> I like ratings.cpan.org.  It's trying to increase the accessibility of
> modules without raising the barrier of entry.  It needs some deeper
> integration, but that's what I'd like to see as the only tweak done to
> CPAN.

I don't like that there's no way to respond to people's comments. I've
had several on my modules that basically say "this module is good,
except it doesn't do X", when the module *does* do X.

> Because open source is in general about ego-stroking and mutual support?

I don't think it has to be about either. Personally, I blame Eric
Raymond for this! :)

To quote perlstyle:

       o   Think about reusability.  Why waste brainpower on a
           one-shot when you might want to do something like it
           again?  Consider generalizing your code.  Consider
           writing a module or object class.  Consider making
           your code run cleanly with "use strict" and "use warn-
           ings" (or -w) in effect Consider giving away your
           code.  Consider changing your whole world view.  Con-
           sider... oh, never mind.

CPAN used to be a place where you could just "give away your code". I
don't think it's really that any more. Or at least I don't see it as
such. I don't know whether it's the world that's changed, or me.[2]

> Anyone that _demands_ support is just rude.  Anyone that _wants_ support
> is just normal.

I agree with both of these. The problem case is the one in in the
middle: the person who _expects_ support.

Tony

[1] There is no meaning to these figures; they only have relevance in
relation to each other.

[2] A sponge and a rusty spanner seem less useful these days

(message missing)

Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Matt S Trout 15:24 on 17 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Tony Bowden 15:33 on 17 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Matt S Trout 15:57 on 17 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Tony Bowden 15:57 on 17 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Dan Sully 16:06 on 17 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Tony Bowden 16:34 on 17 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
William Ross 16:59 on 17 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Matt S Trout 16:23 on 17 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Tony Bowden 16:29 on 17 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Stephen Quinney 08:43 on 18 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Tony Bowden 09:14 on 18 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Brett Sanger 13:13 on 18 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
merlyn (Randal L. Schwartz) 13:27 on 18 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Tony Bowden 16:03 on 18 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Brett Sanger 16:11 on 18 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Tony Bowden 16:41 on 18 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Brett Sanger 17:39 on 18 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Tony Bowden 18:05 on 18 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Brett Sanger 18:13 on 18 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Christopher Hicks 19:12 on 18 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Casey West 18:20 on 18 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Simon Wilcox 16:23 on 18 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Tony Bowden 16:57 on 18 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Simon Wilcox 17:11 on 18 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Tony Bowden 17:34 on 18 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Simon Wilcox 17:51 on 18 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ask_Bj=F8rn_Hansen?= 20:23 on 18 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Brett Sanger 17:54 on 18 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Bryan Allen 18:20 on 18 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Tony Bowden 18:55 on 18 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Casey West 19:05 on 18 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Cees Hek 19:17 on 18 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Bogart Salzberg 20:37 on 18 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Sam Vilain 06:05 on 19 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
leif.eriksen 06:22 on 19 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Tony Bowden 08:10 on 19 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Casey West 13:40 on 19 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Tony Bowden 14:47 on 18 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Brett Sanger 15:00 on 18 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Tony Bowden 17:10 on 18 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Gordon Haverland 15:59 on 18 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Tony Bowden 16:27 on 18 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Tyler Rorabaugh 16:33 on 18 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Simon Wilcox 16:35 on 18 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Tony Bowden 16:48 on 18 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
hartzell 20:52 on 18 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Tony Bowden 21:05 on 18 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Aaron Trevena 18:44 on 19 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Tony Bowden 10:20 on 18 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Edward J. Sabol 19:15 on 18 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Tony Bowden 19:21 on 18 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Edward J. Sabol 19:31 on 18 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Matt S Trout 19:32 on 18 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Dana Hudes 02:33 on 19 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Matt S Trout 02:54 on 19 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Rick Measham 21:27 on 17 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Michael G Schwern 21:34 on 17 Jul 2005

RE: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Andrew O'Brien 00:26 on 19 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Tony Bowden 00:34 on 19 Jul 2005

RE: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Simon Wilcox 08:03 on 19 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Mike Whitaker 08:05 on 19 Jul 2005

RE: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Andrew O'Brien 01:04 on 19 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Matt S Trout 17:06 on 17 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Tony Bowden 17:07 on 17 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Dana Hudes 17:24 on 17 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Mike Whitaker 18:18 on 17 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Sebastian Riedel 18:40 on 17 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
leif.eriksen 03:01 on 18 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ask_Bj=F8rn_Hansen?= 07:35 on 18 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Matt S Trout 13:52 on 18 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Tony Bowden 14:55 on 18 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Michael Peters 14:56 on 18 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Tony Bowden 15:16 on 18 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Tony Bowden 18:16 on 18 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Tony Bowden 18:36 on 18 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Mike Whitaker 18:39 on 18 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Tony Bowden 18:47 on 18 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Michael Peters 19:30 on 18 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Tony Bowden 19:44 on 18 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ask_Bj=F8rn_Hansen?= 20:32 on 18 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Tony Bowden 20:41 on 18 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Tony Bowden 18:45 on 18 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Scott McWhirter 19:19 on 18 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Tony Bowden 19:29 on 18 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Rick Measham 00:23 on 19 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Bryan Allen 19:24 on 18 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Tony Bowden 19:24 on 18 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Matt S Trout 19:38 on 18 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Tony Bowden 19:39 on 18 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
hartzell 20:53 on 18 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
merlyn (Randal L. Schwartz) 21:35 on 18 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Tony Bowden 21:50 on 18 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Tony Bowden 19:35 on 18 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Matt S Trout 19:58 on 18 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Tony Bowden 19:56 on 18 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Rhesa Rozendaal 20:34 on 18 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Tony Bowden 23:01 on 18 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
David Baird 00:31 on 19 Jul 2005


Peter Speltz 05:54 on 20 Jul 2005

Re: your mail
Tony Bowden 07:19 on 20 Jul 2005

Re: Wherefore the 1.0 release?
Tony Bowden 19:43 on 18 Jul 2005

Re: your mail
Peter Speltz 16:12 on 20 Jul 2005

Generated at 16:37 on 28 Jul 2005 by mariachi v0.52