Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Clear questions and runnable code
get the best and fastest answer
 
PerlMonks  

Categorized Damian Modules

by TheDamian (Priest)
on Aug 25, 2005 at 23:10 UTC ( #486756=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re: Things I Don't Use in Perl
in thread Things I Don't Use in Perl

Actually, I don't use much of anything Damian writes, but it doesn't have to do with the code quality, really. Some people get excited about his cool hacks, but can't seperate his production-useful stuff from the cool proof-of-concept hacks. They end up using anything from TheDamian, and some of them shouldn't be used for anything that anyone else has to maintain (and that's just about everything). I pretend none of that stuff exists so I don't spread the word. It's cool stuff: I just don't want to ever maintain it.
The inability to accurately categorize and assess CPAN modules is a genuine problem that many people face. But refraining from all temptations just because a few of them are bad for you seems counterproductive.

So, in the hope that brian (and everyone else) will be better able to take advantage of my genuinely useful contributions without falling victim to my occasionally insanities, here's a categorized list of my current modules, with recommended dosages...


Damian modules you shouldn't use in production because they're intended to be jokes:

Damian modules you shouldn't use in production because their purpose is to explore and prototype future core language features:

Damian modules you shouldn't use in production because they've been superceded by better modules:

Special-purpose Damian modules that are useful for developing other modules or for solving difficult implementation problems, but which probably shouldn't be used directly in application code:

Damian modules that are specifically debugging and coding aids and which Damian uses himself during code development:

Damian modules that are generally safe, robust, and handy, and which Damian regularly uses in his own deployed code:



Comment on Categorized Damian Modules
Re: Categorized Damian Modules
by tlm (Prior) on Aug 27, 2005 at 14:12 UTC

    This hadn't occurred to me until I read your post, but now I think it would be very useful if submitters to CPAN gave a similar explicit rating to their submissions. For one thing, this would help distinguish those submissions that are made in the spirit of "release early, release often" from those that are, at least in the author's estimation, ready for production. I realize that the author's opinion of his/her module may be inflated (or in some cases deflated) but I think it would be a valuable piece of information nonetheless.

    the lowliest monk

        Yes but this is for registered modules only, only a fraction of CPAN.

        --
        In Bob We Trust, All Others Bring Data.

Re: Categorized Damian Modules
by dragonchild (Archbishop) on Sep 06, 2005 at 15:24 UTC
    I know this is asking a lot, but would it be possible for you to, as you have time, modify the REAMDEs and main POD for those to indicate their production-worthiness? I have seen Switch and Class::Contract used in production and I personally have used Quantum::Superpositions in production-affecting code (to good effect).

    My criteria for good software:
    1. Does it work?
    2. Can someone else come in, make a change, and be reasonably certain no bugs were introduced?
Re: Categorized Damian Modules
by chexmix (Hermit) on Nov 13, 2007 at 13:41 UTC
    I just took a look at Coy. The fact that the documentation is in haiku makes me an even bigger fan of your work than I was already. Sorry to blather, but that's just great.
Re: Categorized Damian Modules
by belg4mit (Prior) on Aug 21, 2008 at 19:27 UTC
    I think Don't belongs in the blue debugging/coding aids category. It's a nicer spelling of if( 0 ) for multi-line commenting.

    --
    In Bob We Trust, All Others Bring Data.

Re: Categorized Damian Modules
by leocharre (Priest) on Mar 03, 2009 at 14:42 UTC

    Don't is kinda interesting..

    I'm a big fan of syntax highlighting.

    If I have a chunka code that I want to ignore, I delete it (it's in some versioning system..), comment it out, pod it..

    This could be cool to sort of... encase it. Ignore it. And still be able to look at code and know it does nothing. And still see the syntax highlighting.
    Hm- I guess I could also just.. not call the code.. Hm.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://486756]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others perusing the Monastery: (12)
As of 2014-09-22 12:17 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    How do you remember the number of days in each month?











    Results (191 votes), past polls