David Manura writes: > Smylers wrote: > > > But yes, as the CGI::Lite maintainer I do have an interest in a > > review of CGI-related modules: I'd like it to put people off using > > CGI::Lite so that I can stop trying to maintain it and everybody > > can use something saner instead ... > > Of course, we'd never know that from the current POD and ratings > system ;)
That wasn't meant entirely seriously. But there did seem to be an underlying assumption that module authors have a vested interest in persuading people to use their modules, even when they are not the most appropriate for the job. So I was questioning that assumption by highlighting the potential for bias in the opposite direction. If I were selling modules I might think like that, but since I'm giving them away I don't see the point of persuading people to use 'my' modules: if something else suits their needs better then blatantly they should use it. (Apart from anything else it reduces the number of requests for features that I don't deem a good fit with what I see as the core purposes of my modules ...) > I've wondered myself whether I should move some CGI programs to > CGI::Lite for improved performance. I took over the maintenance of CGI::Lite because I was using it, I had a bug-fix for it, and the previous maintainer was no longer active. I have some issues with it. Yes, you can't (yet) work that out from the current Cpan ratings. I thought it'd be silly to give rate my own module pointing out obviously bad things without at least attempting to fix (or document) them. For example a major problem is that it has no licence; I need to contact its author asking about that, and either documenting what its licence is or putting in a big warning that it's unknown. But I will do this, and update the docs so that the areas where the module falls down are mentioned, and rate it -- honest. Smylers
