Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
good chemistry is complicated,
and a little bit messy -LW
 
PerlMonks  

new XML module

by gav^ (Curate)
on Apr 02, 2002 at 05:06 UTC ( #155922=perlmeditation: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??

I for one am very excited by the release of XML::Simpler as XML::Simple was getting a bit too tricky for me...

gav^

Comment on new XML module
(crazyinsomniac: oh i'm excited) Re: new XML module
by crazyinsomniac (Prior) on Apr 02, 2002 at 08:11 UTC
    I can't believe grantm posted this, here is the entire module (minus pod)
    # $Id: Simpler.pm,v 1.0 2002/04/01 00:00:00 grantm Exp $ package XML::Simpler; use strict; use warnings; require Exporter; use File::Slurp; use vars qw(@ISA @EXPORT $VERSION); @ISA = qw(Exporter); @EXPORT = qw( XMLin XMLout ); $VERSION = '1.00'; sub XMLin { read_file ( $_[0] ) } sub XMLout { write_file( $_[1], $_[0]) } 1; __END__
    It does not belong in the XML:: namespace any more than it does on CPAN (waste of space).

    It does not parse XML in any way shape or form, nor does it do anything remotely useful or entertaining.

    I too am excited , I can't believe grantm's selfishness (CPAN is not a crap factory).

    Why are you excited gav^?

    package XML::Simpler; use strict; use warnings; require Exporter; use vars qw(@ISA @EXPORT $VERSION); @ISA = qw(Exporter); @EXPORT = qw( XMLin XMLout ); $VERSION = '1.00'; sub XMLin { my $file = shift; my @lines(); open(FILE,$file) or die "couldn't open $file $!"; while(<FILE>) { my $line = $_; push @lines, \$line; } close(FILE); return @lines; } 1; __END__
    Certainly excites me, but not as much as the fact that the XMLout function does not work very well, since File::Slurp's write_file looks like
    sub write_file { my ($f, @data) = @_; local(*F); open(F, ">$f") || croak "open >$f: $!"; (print F @data) || croak "write $f: $!"; close(F) || croak "close $f: $!"; return 1; }
    so all that would ever be printed out is HASH(0x263d8f8) or ARRAY(ox263d8f8) or some such useless tidbit.

    Man oh man am I excited, so much so that I am going to write to grantm, and tell everybody I know to avoid his CPAN directory.

    update (posted 4 minutes after this node was created, before dws/shotgunefx replied): the fact that "Version 1.00 of XML::Simpler was released on April 1st, 2002" further excites me (is nothing sacred anymore, must everything be tainted in such a disgusting manner).

     
    ______crazyinsomniac_____________________________
    Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most.
    perl -e "$q=$_;map({chr unpack qq;H*;,$_}split(q;;,q*H*));print;$q/$q;"

      This is the only April Fool's joke I actually noticed this year. I agree about cluttering CPAN. Also the slight name deviation will most likely cause some installers a headache at some point. He could have made his joke without actually throwing it up there with a note on use.perl or something with a link to a mock up.

      Though I must repent and confess I chuckled at
      In the absence of hash keys and array indexes, users will need to adopt different techniques for extracting individual data values. The most popular approach will likely be regular expressions but this is Perl and there is always more than one way to do it, so split() and substr() are likely to be popular alternatives.

      -Lee

      "To be civilized is to deny one's nature."

        Joke or no joke, this should NOT be in CPAN, this should NOT be work load for testers. I wonder why this module (the namespace for it) was not rejected - can any fool add his own favourite Foo::Bar::Broken?

        Now, beginners will think this module is real, and try to use it. That means a waste of development time and it's a very bad name for Perl and the CPAN.

        Maybe if it was named Acme::XML::Simpler, or XML::Simpleminded, maybe I could laugh.

        U28geW91IGNhbiBhbGwgcm90MTMgY
        W5kIHBhY2soKS4gQnV0IGRvIHlvdS
        ByZWNvZ25pc2UgQmFzZTY0IHdoZW4
        geW91IHNlZSBpdD8gIC0tIEp1ZXJk
        

      ... here is the entire module (minus pod)... It does not parse XML in any way shape or form, nor does it do anything remotely useful or entertaining.

      The joke, such as it is, is in the POD. Try re-reading the module minus code.

      But you're right. This is a waste of CPAN cycles.

        Try re-reading the module minus code.

        The pod doesn't make clear it's bogus code, people will be bitten by this module, not only today or this week. A lot of cultures don't have an April fools day.

        U28geW91IGNhbiBhbGwgcm90MTMgY
        W5kIHBhY2soKS4gQnV0IGRvIHlvdS
        ByZWNvZ25pc2UgQmFzZTY0IHdoZW4
        geW91IHNlZSBpdD8gIC0tIEp1ZXJk
        

      Just an aside, I think gav^'s post was intended with a ; )

      -Lee

      "To be civilized is to deny one's nature."
      OK, I'm here to face the music!

      I really appreciate the work of CPAN Testers and I apologise to any of them who wasted time as a result of my upload.

      There is a history of amusing modules being uploaded to CPAN on April 1st. As far as I can tell, the key difference between previous ones (eg: Sex, DNA, Bleach, Buffy) and mine was that XML::Simpler did not contain obfuscated Perl code. I would argue that mine is no more or less useful than the other packages. It does work exactly as the documentation describes.

      I think it would be a bit silly of people to boycott my XML::Simple module merely because they didn't like my upload of XML::Simpler. I'm sorry if people feel that way.

      Humour is in the eye of the beholder and clearly some people in this forum were not amused.

      Once again, I apologise - I intended no offence.

      Grant
        Sorry about the anonymous bit - I thought I'd logged in.

        As far as I can tell, the key difference between previous ones (eg: Sex, DNA, Bleach, Buffy) and mine was that XML::Simpler did not contain obfuscated Perl code.

        That's not the point. "Sex" is obviously not serious, DNA is useable, and the synopsis makes clear it's just for fun. Both Bleach and Buffy are in the Acme:: namespace, home of useless, but fun modules.

        XML::Simpler is in the XML:: namespace, and will be found when anyone searches for XML or XML::Simple. A lot of people want ease of use, and will install XML::Simpler before trying XML::Simple. They'll find out it's useless and might give up on trying other modules, because even the simplest doesn't work.

        Had you named it Acme::XML::Simpler, there would be no problem.

        As modules can't be deleted easily, I urge you to add a very verbose and clear statement at the top of your POD, add a warning to the code itself, and release version 1.01. Then, request it to be deleted, and if you like, re-submit it under the Acme:: namespace.

        I would argue that mine is no more or less useful than the other packages. It does work exactly as the documentation describes.

        Have you seen my latest module?

        package Null; use v5.6.0 use strict; our $VERSION = '1.00'; __END__ =head1 NAME Null - Does absolutely nothing =head1 SYNOPSIS use Null; =head1 DESCRIPTION This module only sets $Null::VERSION, but does nothing else. =head1 COPYRIGHT None is claimed. This module is released into the public domain. =cut
        This module (though untested) does _EXACTLY_ that what is documented. But it should NOT be in CPAN.

        U28geW91IGNhbiBhbGwgcm90MTMgY
        W5kIHBhY2soKS4gQnV0IGRvIHlvdS
        ByZWNvZ25pc2UgQmFzZTY0IHdoZW4
        geW91IHNlZSBpdD8gIC0tIEp1ZXJk
        

      I agree with CI's feeling that an April Fool's joke should not be waiting space in what is normally considered to be a utility like CPAN. Although I will point out that there are a handful of modules that their respective authors describe as "curiousities" (such as Quantum::Superposition by Damian) that have a low utility value. This is not to say that they aren't useful; typically the programming behind the module is serious enough to be used as learning code, or there's an unseen but possible useful implmentation of the module - an example here would be using Q:S to actually work out how one would lay out a quantum computer and make sure that there's a reasonable approach to the problem solution in non-quantum space.

      But yea, XML::Simpler doesn't offer either. It's a gag, and should have been limited to discussion groups like here or perlxml, or even something like an article at ORA (with an approiate post-fix to clue those in not already on the joke).

      -----------------------------------------------------
      Dr. Michael K. Neylon - mneylon-pm@masemware.com || "You've left the lens cap of your mind on again, Pinky" - The Brain
      "I can see my house from here!"
      It's not what you know, but knowing how to find it if you don't know that's important

      Sorry, my post should have had a big ':)' at the end. I found the POD docs to be quite entertaining. I assumed that it would be deleted it from CPAN in a couple of days with no harm done.

      gav^

        Indeed it will
Re: new XML module
by Juerd (Abbot) on Apr 02, 2002 at 08:22 UTC

    01-04 is a very bad excuse for

    • Polluting CPAN
    • Disrespecting XML::Simple
    • Storing stringified references

    U28geW91IGNhbiBhbGwgcm90MTMgY
    W5kIHBhY2soKS4gQnV0IGRvIHlvdS
    ByZWNvZ25pc2UgQmFzZTY0IHdoZW4
    geW91IHNlZSBpdD8gIC0tIEp1ZXJk
    

      I agree that the joke went a little too far, the XML namespace is already clutered enough, but Grant is the author of XML::Simple, so maybe he is allowed to show a little disrespect ;--) What's wrong with stringified references ? ;--)

        Actually, XML::Simpler's API doesn't use references. As long as you pass XMLout() a data structure which is compatible with that returned by XMLin(), no stringification should occur :-)
Re: new XML module
by jryan (Vicar) on Apr 02, 2002 at 22:12 UTC

    I am quite disappointed by many of my fellow monks after reading this node. One of the things that makes the Perl community (and especially the Monastery) so great is that it is very lighthearted, especially compared to the "competition", such as Microsoft products, Java, etc. I handed out many -- to the responses here because I was disgusted that something as simple as an april fools joke turned into an embarrassment to the Monastery (how the hell did this get frontpaged, anyways?).

    This isn't something thats happened just at this node. I've noticed it happening more and more lately; I often see a proposal mocked and questions recieving very sarcastic responses with very little substance attached. Is that the kind of image that we want to project to new monks and the rest of the world? I certainly would not of stuck around here if my first question here had gotten such a response.

    Here is an idea: if you don't have much positive & useful material to add, or simply think that a node is frivilous, how about shutting the F*** up instead of acting like an asshole? It would be much appreciated.

      Here is an idea: if you don't have much positive & useful material to add, or simply think that a node is frivilous

      Yeah, I guess no-one actually cares about CPAN pollution. It's just us CPAN purists who think bogus modules should not be in the XML:: namespace. We should not complain.

      jryan, CPAN is an important Perl community service. Bad beta modules are welcome, humor is welcome. But a joke module should not be under a serious namespace, and the joke should be made much more obvious to those who don't know the phenomenon called "April fools day".

      If this module was called Acme::XML::Simpler, I wouldn't have complained.

      U28geW91IGNhbiBhbGwgcm90MTMgY
      W5kIHBhY2soKS4gQnV0IGRvIHlvdS
      ByZWNvZ25pc2UgQmFzZTY0IHdoZW4
      geW91IHNlZSBpdD8gIC0tIEp1ZXJk
      

        My gripe, Juerd, is that I that when I see childish responses such as these:

        I too am excited , I can't believe grantm's selfishness (CPAN is not a crap factory).
        Man oh man am I excited, so much so that I am going to write to grantm, and tell everybody I know to avoid his CPAN directory.
        can any fool add his own favourite Foo::Bar::Broken?
        Have you seen my latest module? **mocking code**

        that I very much wanted to never bother coming back here, as this kind of thing happens all the time. Its not like grantm is an stupid beginnier, his XML::Simple module seems to be quite popular. Even if he was, he most certainly did not deserve to be treated as such. I never said that you weren't allowed to voice complaints on his actions, but perhaps it could have been voiced a little better?

Re: new XML module
by smitz (Chaplain) on Apr 03, 2002 at 21:50 UTC
    Big round of applause to all the monks who felt it their duty to ruin an innocent April Fools joke. The world is better place now, well done.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: perlmeditation [id://155922]
Approved by root
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others cooling their heels in the Monastery: (9)
As of 2014-12-22 07:52 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    Is guessing a good strategy for surviving in the IT business?





    Results (112 votes), past polls