On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 09:03:27AM -0600, Dave Rolsky wrote: > On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, A. Pagaltzis wrote: > > > * It's better to have comparative articles than module centric > > reviews; they're also less susceptible to manipulation. > > I think these are great. The problem is they're a lot of work. I've > written two (POOP and date/time) and I know Perrin wrote one for > templating systems. They require you to look at _lots_ of modules and > also to have a good understanding of all the problems that need to be > solved in the area.
Comparative articles are an incredible amount of work, especially for problem domains with a lot of options. They're even more work when the author has a vested interest in one of the modules being compared. He must take extra precautions to enforce objectivity. Anything less, and the conflict of interest will almost assuredly tip the scales in his module's favor. Consider comparative benchmarks as an example. It's a lot of work to negate bias towards modules the author is more familiar with. Maybe Open Source needs an objective reviewing organization like Consumer Union (http://www.consumerreports.org/). They could compare programming languages, text editors, and operating systems. A number of long-standing holy wars could be ended once and for all. :) -- Rocco Caputo - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://poe.perl.org/
