Re^2: Reliable software OR Is CPAN the sacred cow

[powerman]

This node falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.

[Jenda]

Guess what. People are using modules from CPAN. They work for them. They get the job done. Their employer gives them money and they get to feed their kids (or buy new gadgets for their computer(s)). I'm kinda inclined to say "worksforme" IS good enough.

If you want to run a superCPAN containing only the perfect modules, go ahead. I'd rather have the wealth of "worksforme" modules than a few and far apart perfect ones. Sure it would be great if people paid more attention to safety. Preventing them from sharing something that works for them as well as for other people is not the way to improve that though.

If you are so inclined, bug the authors to improve their modules (preferably telling them what's wrong and how to improve it), rate modules, keep a list of those that passed your scrutiny, but please do not frighten people away from sharing. The world is not perfect, learn to live with that.

[talexb]

Are you complaining that there are no Mail::* modules that follow 100% of the RFCs? Or that 99.9% of the modules on CPAN aren't reliable, secure, etc.? Or both?
Both.

OK then -- my suggestions is that you pick a module, retrofit it to make it reliable and secure (according to your standards) and post the results here on Perlmonks.

We gladly await your results, and promise to buy you beer at the next YAPC.

[phaylon]

Ok, you CAN develop "worksforme" software for yourself, but don't try to make it public by uploading it to CPAN.

Why? Could it be that you're expecting the wrong things of CPAN? Perl is useful in large and complex projects as well as in little Ineedthisbastardnow.pl's. Both are part of the Perl world and I expect both to be found on CPAN.