Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks Frank
There's more than one way to do things
 
PerlMonks  

Re^5: what would you like to see in perl5.12?

by EvanCarroll (Chaplain)
on Aug 20, 2007 at 18:11 UTC ( #633893=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^4: what would you like to see in perl5.12?
in thread what would you like to see in perl5.12?

CORE is set for what 5.12? Says who? You're telling me without 5.10 out, some mythical entity has said nothing new can be added to CORE?... I've never heard of such a thing.


It's my opinion that POD is a bad format, and perldoc is an old method of getting things done that needs to be reexamined. The majority of my technical complaints can be overcome with Moose, and the majority of documentation complaints could be overcome with greater community support. With that said, in my eyes, making it easier for the community to become involved should be a priority. The success of a wiki's over the traditional doc-patch approach has proven itself for most every project, look at the amount of Frameworks and modules that have auxiliary wikis. The wiki's actually hurt CPAN as is because CPAN is no longer your central source for all things perl, so I'm saying CPAN needs wiki-support for docs, perldoc needs to be a front-end into it, and pod needs a revamp and tuning to take it back to source-comments and away from tutorials.



Evan Carroll
www.EvanCarroll.com


Comment on Re^5: what would you like to see in perl5.12?
Re^6: what would you like to see in perl5.12?
by ysth (Canon) on Aug 22, 2007 at 19:06 UTC
    What modules are in the core is certainly not set. But there are rules for what qualifies that boil down to some reason to need the module in the core rather than just on CPAN. I have the feeling that you propose Moose mostly so it has some blessing as the official Perl OO system. But even if everyone agreed with that blessing, that doesn't make it needed in the core.
Re^6: what would you like to see in perl5.12?
by Ven'Tatsu (Deacon) on Sep 24, 2007 at 21:38 UTC

    I'm a fan of wikis in general, however in my experience documentation wikis are very hit or miss. A while back I was learning Rails for a side job. There were a few nice tutorials and the API docs were very thorough, but developer (internal not application) oriented. On the other hand the Rails wiki at the time was not very useful. It covered all the basics, but it had gaps in many of the intermediate areas of Rails (from my point of view). It may be that my problems were unique, or that my general lack of experience in Rails (and Ruby) exacerbated my difficulties. In the end I felt like the Rails developers hadn't written good user oriented docs and abdicated that responsibility to the community.

    I have certainly seen worse documentation on CPAN, but never for a project that large or popular. A wiki may improve a projects documentation, but IMO it needs a strong developer written base to start from. Promoting wiki as the official Perl document source isn't likely to encourage developers to be thorough in their documentation. It's just one more excuse to do the documentation later.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://633893]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others perusing the Monastery: (18)
As of 2014-04-16 13:48 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    April first is:







    Results (427 votes), past polls