demerphq wrote:
On 4/4/06, David Landgren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't think bandwidth is the argument.
I was under the impression it was.
Believe it or not, there are programmers who still use modems. This is
usually because they live in the third world, such as Pennsylvania or
Scotland.
HD space isnt much more expensive than bandwidth, and we mirror all of
CPAN everywhere so I dont really think its a good argument.
Which "we" mirrors CPAN everywhere? I know that I certainly don't keep
CPAN mirrors everywhere I'm likely to program because I don't have the
disk space and have better things to do with the bandwidth. We don't
even keep a full CPAN mirror at work.
>>demerphq wrote:
Many module authors set a design objective of making their modules
"dependent only on core modules". This is a comment that I see on a
regular basis.
Application authors even more so.
If you're installing a module, it's reasonable to assume that you know
how to use the CPAN - after all, that's where you got the blasted thing
from in the first place. But if you're installing an application, you
probably downloaded a tarball from sourceforget or something like that,
and it's quite likely that you've never even *heard* of CPAN.
What wheels are being reinvented, or what code is being duplicated? I
think the core problem-space isn't too bad.
rsnapshot (for example) has its own code for traversing a directory
tree, its own cut-down Memoize, and probably a few others that I've not
found yet.
That said, I don't want to see those things go into the core, because
I'm in the "the core is too big already" camp.
--
David Cantrell
