> -----Original Message----- > From: Hans Dieter Pearcey [mailto:hdp.perl.module-auth...@weftsoar.net] > Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 10:36 PM > To: module-authors@perl.org > Subject: Re: "a lot of controversy" about Module::Build
> In any case, the mere vitality of this thread indicates that saying > "maybe" on > Module::Build is reasonable -- there are clearly strong differences of > opinion > within the community, and it doesn't matter (to that subject) that you > say very > forcefully that there is no reason not to use Module::Build, and call > people > who do not want to use it "irrational", because that all is *part* of > the > "controversy", not its conclusion. Well well... It looks like I've opened a can of worms :p I think M::B has a clean and understandable interface while EU::MM is archaic (yes I know I didn't say something new). But to make a point: at my previous $job, the back-end was converted from lots of procedural cgi' s into OOP and the the new system was built with M::B (around '06). Each section was built as a CPAN distro (but they were lacking some parts). And every code was somoke-tested each night. So, I think M::B is the way to go for any new code. It has a solid interface and it is *in core*. And for the "Classic Perl Books" not mentioning M::B thing, they need an update obviously. Most of them are several years (or even a decade) old.
