On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 9:55 PM, Kwan Lowe <kwan.lowe at gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 2:41 PM, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote: >> On 12/14/2010 1:16 PM, Adam Tauno Williams wrote: >>> >>> >>> Personally I've banned Perl from the network primarily because of the >>> maintenance disaster that is CPAN. >> >> And your perfectly maintained public source of equivalent functionality >> is in what language? >> >> But, you should rarely if ever use CPAN code directly in Centos for the >> same reasons you wouldn't drop a stock upstream kernel every few days. >> Most of what you are likely to need are packaged - and maintained - in >> EPEL or rpmforge. > > :) > Thank goodness for CPAN2RPM. I use it quite often for the occasional > package that is not in the default repos. shhh, do not spoil the ideas that Perl and the CPAN are dreadful beasts and horrible to maintain ;-) http://www.slideshare.net/davorg/perl-in-rpmland-presentation As to debian based distributions, the Perl support there is excellent and if a module is not available from the repositories, creating your own package is quite trivial with dh-make-perl. It kind of gets boring to see Perl attacked for no reason. The problem is: if you do not counter the claims, they show up in Google and then people will think Perl is bad. So this is why one has to set it straight. It is quite funny that when pythonistas come accross 'bad python', they say: oh, they *clearly* do not understand the language, that is why this code is bad. So: why would it be different in any other language? > As to Perl.. though it still is my preferred language for getting > things done (mainly because I understand it that I first think out > problems in Perl then convert to other languages), I have seen some > bad, really bad Perl code.. of course. Have you seen really bad (C|Python|Visual Basic|shell|.*)? I guess so too. Will that have to do with the coder of with the language? -- natxo