|
Re^2: Shouldn't JSON be faster?
by Tux (Canon) on May 31, 2010 at 07:42 UTC
|
BWAH! Support? on this module? Forget it. I'm a big fan of CPAN, and free support and good test suites are true for most modules, but this author is not willing to comply to the standards that perl requires (e.g. full ANSI-C89). If a reported bug is not to his liking, he just deletes it. All other bugs are rejected. He hates RT and insults people that use it.
End-of-rant. But I seriously do not see this as support, and am very willing to trade speed for usefulness! I'm using JSON on a daily basis. No way I'm going to install JSON::XS.
Enjoy, Have FUN! H.Merijn
| [reply] |
|
|
As an impartial observer reading your evidence; he is right and you are wrong.
Expecting programmers to cater to the vagaries of every ancient C compiler that ever ran on any platform Perl has been ported to is quite ridiculous.
You have the choice not to use his modules. You have the choice to upgrade to a compiler that complies with a more modern specification. His only choice is to ignore or delete your ridiculous demands of his source code.
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
| [reply] |
|
|
The point here is not old (and obsolete) OS's, but the compliance to ANSI C89 versus ANSI C99.
All of perl requires a ANSI C compliant compiler. Though it is not obvious everywhere, the requirement is a C89 compatible C compiler. That means that there is no guarantee whatsoever that you can build modules written for C99 minimum can be used with any version of perl.
There is a big difference. And I'm not pointing at differences between GNU gcc and expensive ANSI C compilers from the big players, but the simple fact the e.g. c++ style comments // is supported in C99, but is not in C89 is something basic that is VERY EASY to fix and doesn't have to change any other parts of the program.
It's not that the code is wrong. It is more courtesy to all perl users to comply to the minimal requirements of perl itself. I did send a patch to make that source C89 compliant, but it was rejected as "the code is already compliant to the standard" (and then deleted). It is indeed following the ANSI standard. Just a shame it follows the wrong one.
Enjoy, Have FUN! H.Merijn
| [reply]
[d/l] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I went back and read all the stuff in that deleted "bug report." Marc was predictably/unnecessarily abusive, but he was right. You are wrong. If you really want C89 support, you could fork and make JSON::XS_C89, but you didn't, you chose to whine and cry and complain on perlmonks (utterly inexplicable). What is wrong with you?
| [reply] |
|
|
It is not my demand, but it is what perl itself requires. I'm just guarding the innocent users that are stuck with old machines.
If you think requiring C89 is historic and stupid, please make that clear to the perl5 porters and try to convince them to update the documentation.
Personally I don't think it is worth quarreling about. The differences are too small to not try to comply to C89. You're just ruling yourself out for older systems. No harm in doing so, but then state so in the docs.
My personal grief extends not to the quality of this particular code, but the complete absence of courtesy. You do not delete RT requests that you don't agree with. You can reject them, and even say in a polite tone that you're not willing to comply to lower standards. Fine with decisions like that, but not the way it went.
I'm competent enough to fix C code to match old compilers I encounter, but I find it so pointless.
Enjoy, Have FUN! H.Merijn
| [reply] |
|
|
|
|
|
A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in. |
