Eric Wilhelm wrote: > # from David Cantrell > # on Wednesday 08 April 2009 12:06: > >>> As I've said before, this is silly. It's a tool, so either it works >>> or it doesn't. We can't really have "controversy" about whether it >>> works or how it works. >> Despite your saying that we can't, we do. There is disagreement about >> whether it's a good idea to use Module::Build, and merely denying that >> the disagreement exists is ... well, it's silly. > You're saying there is a debate about whether stagnation is a good idea?
No. Don't be silly. > Dissenters are certainly free to hold their opinions without reason, but > I would rather they not inflict those irrationalities on others as > advice. What you would rather has no bearing on what *is*. And your belief that those who disagree with you are irrational is both offensive and demonstrates that you've not actually bothered to read those opinions. > Please elaborate on why one should *not* use Module::Build. That depends on who one is. If you're writing specifically for people who keep their toolchain and perl religiously up-to-date, then by all means use Module::Build. But if you're not, then using Module::Build is silly because it hasn't been in core for very long. I'm glad it is now in core, because I think it superior to the alternatives in all ways apart from *actually being installed*, and maybe in a coupla years I'll consider using it. -- David Cantrell | Official London Perl Mongers Bad Influence What a lovely day! Now watch me spoil it for you.
