I hope this new site is a great success.
However, based on past history, the odds are against it.
From Writing Solid CPAN Modules (Jan 2005):
If you're lucky, your module might be reviewed at
cpan ratings
or
gav's CPAN wiki
or
Mark Fowler's lovely Advent Calendar
or even here in the Perl Monks Module Reviews section.
You might even try posting a request for review at
Simon's code review ladder.
However, you're unlikely to gain much from these sources simply
because performing a detailed, quality module review is very time
consuming and few people have the time and inclination to do it.
Note that the Perl Monks Module Reviews section sees little action
nowadays and Simon's code review ladder did not last very long.
I feel a more realistic approach is to isolate small pieces of code from
your module that you're unhappy with and post multiple small questions to Perl Monks.
Another approach is to review your own module using checklists.
A sample module review checklist can be found at Writing Solid CPAN Modules.
Perhaps the new PrePAN site might develop some module review checklists,
or even a tool, Module::Critic say,
to automatically review CPAN modules
(similar to Perl::Critic) ...
though I just remembered we already
have CPANTS Kwalitee,
which never seemed to gain much support.
| [reply] |
Only time will tell I guess.
I've been optimistic in the past about Perl infrastructure that hasn't worked out, such as CPAN Forum and Phalanx and Kwalitee. I wasn't positive about AnnoCPAN but that didn't work out either. One of the few tools of this type that I think has been useful to date is CPAN Ratings.
However, if we expect PrePAN to provide "a detailed, quality module review" then we are setting it up for failure because it doesn't seem to be one of the stated goals and I can't imagine anyone doing that for fun anyway.
At the very least it might take module critiques, as opposed to reviews, off of CPAN Ratings where they don't belong and where there isn't any mechanism for discussion and on to a more suitable site. It might also prove useful for conscientious module writers (but they aren't the ones who need the help anyway).
As with all things it will only succeed if it provides functionality that people require in an easy to use manner. It seems to have the latter part at least.
As I pointed out though, my optimism in these matters doesn't count for anything.
--
John.
| [reply] |
