Re^2: The Limitations of the CPAN

[Ovid]

First, the node is perfectly titled. In large scale applications the CPAN's utility is limited as the greatest value comes from finely-tuned code that is heavily customized for the needs of the company using the application. I should know. I work in large scale environments.

Second, my node was not a critique of the CPAN. Read it again. It was a critique of those who claim that the CPAN makes up for any limitations (real or perceived) in Perl.

Third, I didn't write per say. Please direct your criticism correctly.

Fourth, if you're going to be pedantic, may I point out that in your charming "IT IS LATIN, PEOPLE, GET IT RIGHT" sentence, there should be a period or other appropriate punctuation after "PEOPLE." The comma is not correct. This is English. Get it right.

[Anonymous Monk]

To dispense with the first three points: the word "PEOPLE" clearly indicates that the 'gripes' are offered in response to participants in this thread, and the overall character thereof, and not to Ovid individually. If the shoe doesn't fit you, then don't try to wear it. No one asked you to put it on.

To dispense with the fourth point: let's just hope the words that may have charmed your socks off, didn't also charm your eyeglasses off. Those charming words are not a sentence, they are a subordinate subclause within a sentence. You may consult item five, subgroup six to see why the comma use is not inconsistent with the time-honored rules of English usage.

Perhaps you could assert that it is a run-on sentence, but such a trifling and dubious complaint would be a mere straw of maladroit verbal discontent, to add to the other such straws in this "pile" of a thread. Fortunately, the pile is meager and withering, and not the least bit likely to break the camel's back.

[demerphq]

I should think Strunk and White would have something to say about your use of "not inconsistent". ;-)

[Anonymous Monk]

No. That's not a subordinate subclause. First of all "subordinate subclause" makes no sense because we don't have enough here to get all the way to "subclause". Maybe you meant "subordinate clause." But even that is nonsense because there is no subordination here. Those are two independent clauses. Whether they are closely related enough to be connected by a comma is a matter of style. I think this is a weak usage, especially when the all caps aspect is taken into account.

On topic: Personally I found the article to reflect my own feelings on the topic. Perl, for all that it is an amazing language, simply has more overhead than necessary--especially compared alonside something like Ruby. While it may be more due to improvements in my coding skills, I find my Ruby code is much easier to debug and maintain than my Perl code. That's important. While they are both easy to get up and running, debugging and maintaining code are the lion's share of the work many coders will be doing.