These reviews for the Attempt module make me question the validity of all code reviews. How could you give a perfect rating to a module that only saves a few keystrokes of simple code, if any? What kind of programmer would have trouble creating Attempt's functionality within their own code? I'd never use a module like that, and I can't believe it was recommended to me and it hasn't received anything but perfect ratings.
well, i saw those (two) reviews, and i agreed with you. so, i put my own code review up. and--this is critical--i looked at the code. i found two bugs, so i entered a rt ticket, which will be forwarded to the module author. i will use this code. it is consise, and i find it extends the language in a way that makes my coding easier. also, this code has gone through code reviews, and has been tested by users. are you sure your code is right? how many users have reviewed your code?
working as a lone wolf consultant, and using perl in companies where there is not wide adoption of the language, i rely heavily on code that has been written, reviewed, and tested by others, namely that found on the CPAN. code reviews are valid, some are more valid than others--if you think otherwise, perhaps you should think some more about it.
if you're so critical, why don't you take the time to post a fair review? put up, or shut up. i did.
|Replies are listed 'Best First'.|
|A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.|