Re^2: How can you determine a CPAN module's development status? ie alpha, beta, (RTM ?) etc (source)

[tye]

Switch.pm was a core module for a long time and was never at all appropriate for use in Production. But I agree that a module being in core makes it more likely to be appropriate for Production use.

A module being "alpha" doesn't really mean that I should avoid using it in Production, IME. I also find it quite common for a module to have both some features that I would be comfortable using in Production and some that I would not.

The most useful metric I've found for avoiding the use of modules in Production is ETOOMUCHMAGIC. An inordinate amount of complexity being relied upon to implement a relatively simple feature is a very bad sign, IME. As is the use of even relatively small amounts of non-mundane complexity.

Non-mundane complexity (often found under the label "magic") is the worst kind because it leaks out in odd ways and interferes with other non-mundane complexity and often causes problems that don't appear at first, can be triggered or defused pretty much at random, and appear completely unrelated to their sources. You can waste huge amounts of time and effort trying to deal with such problems.

While excessive depth of mundane complexity thwarts attempts at quick resolution by the sheer volume to be searched through and the great distance that can result between the problem and its source, which can make fixing the problem impractical.

When deciding whether I want to use a module in Production or not, I usually read the source code. (Though, DBI is a good example of an exception to that; but it would take too long to try to properly explain that.)

[Anonymous Monk]

... ETOOMUCHMAGIC ... Non-mundane ... smell

Hmm, what's that mean?

Re: Can an element be created because it was accessed ? ( || {} )

autovivification.pm; Yes, it sticks its fingers way too deep into guts...strong smell of ETOOMUCHMAGIC

Practical example of "Is Perl code maintainable"

Note that I didn't use File::stat because the BUGS section is unacceptable to me. ETOOMUCHMAGIC is such a common problem

(tye)Re: Reading a pipe

a bug in antique perl version, nothing interesting here

Is Devel::Declare really so much less evil than source filters?

said "weird issues that won't seem to make any sense". Those both smell very much like ETOOMUCHMAGIC.

ETOOMUCHMAGIC breakage can be quite cryptic and fundamental and might not even hint at the module that is pumping in the most "magic". So you waste a lot of time trying to find the source(s) of the problem.

Hello, three years have passed. What happened between D::D and the p5p? How did D::D evolve?

Too much black magic

Sub::Uplevel

Re^10: Scalar context of slice (vs grep)

ETOOMUCHMAGIC -- assuming things that do not remain true -- an explanation given that included unnecessary complication and that complication also had the distinct disadvantage of having lead other people into problems -- quoted meme is seriously flawed

using strict from another module

I haven't used either, and I fear that you'll get bitten by ETOOMUCHMAGIC if you use them instead of simple templates --In addition to the Pod, I describe there's really very little magic involved in ToolSet

Devel::Declare vs LISP like macros...

Heh. Checking the reviews of one of the example modules, "Make sure that you have the latest Devel::Declare or you can have some weird issues that won't seem to make any sense". Exactly the type of error that result from source filters... ...The bane and hallmark of ETOOMUCHMAGIC.

Use of wantarray Considered Harmful

As for the several recommendations of Contextual::Return, I have to disagree. That module appears to have been implemented in a way that suffers significantly from ETOOMUCHMAGIC and I happily avoid it and encourage others to as well.

Some thoughts around the "is Perl code maintainable" discussion

???

Re^3: Your favorite objects NOT of the hashref phylum (inherit)

I strongly dislike class-making frameworks that everyone and their dog wants to bolt onto the side of Perl. So I'm not going to be writing any plug-ins for one. I've never seen any significant value in any of them and most of them look quite prone to break things due to ETOOMUCHMAGIC (and I've seen several actually break things), so I'm quite happy to avoid all of them completely.

Re: POD from code?

create my data (not code) from POD ; Usually I find that approach to be a bit too much magic,

removing someone elses AUTOLOAD

PS I think I recall in Damian's PBP Dog book, he states AUTOLOADs are bad, and I agree! Too much magick.

Re: Can't seem to use an AoH with Template::Toolkit

In short, the problem is too much magic. When you call $cgi->Vars, you don't get a normal hashref. Instead

Re: email pdf file - file damaged

I have my reservations about IO::All, especially once you move from a hardcoded filename to anything variable because it reopens the security hole that was fixed by introducing the three argument form of open.

but I would entirely stay away from IO::All for it heaps too much magic onto magic and relies on the undocumented assumptions made by Ingy.

Re: Overloading print()

operator Overloading can be very convenient, but too much magic can hurt maintainability.

Re: WSDL generation for a SOAP::Lite server

WSDL::Generator currently tries to use too much magic, and the resulting WSDL is not exactly easy to document.

Re^6: RFC: Is there more to alias?

You still misundestand how Data::Alias works, and you seem to see too much magic where there is none.

Re^18: use fields; # damnit

It just shouldn't be used on the application logic level — too much magic is a nightmare.

Re: Wanted: Spiffy evangelist

Maybe the fact that nobody has voted on Spiffy yet could be a warning sign?

To me, Spiffy is yet another way of being too clever for your own good. It is Ingys object framework, and it is mainly used for Spoon, which in turn is a nice thing for very small, very contained scripts and nothing else. I am wary of using modules that contain way too much magic, and if I were to build a bigger framework, I wouldn't rely on anything that requires a larger span of attention from Ingys part.

WOW, ingy, author of Spiffy, is using Spiffy in modules he is writing/maintaining? You don't say /sarcasm

Re: Your favourite gory detail...

Using eof() with empty parentheses is very different...That's just too much magic for one parenthesis!

[zork42]

Wow that's a lot of info there!
It'll take me a while to go through that.

What does "ETOOMUCHMAGIC" mean?
"TOOMUCHMAGIC" presumably means, well, uh, "too much magic"
But what does the "E" letter mean?!

[Corion]

It's a play on the constants in errno.h, which all start with E, and are all uppercase as is customary in C.