[Gllug] OSS CMSs

[Bruce Richardson]

On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 10:33:37AM +0100, Doug wrote:
> Bruce Richardson wrote:
> >I'm still puzzled by the lack of any genuine Python equivalent to CPAN.
> >Making everything a core module isn't a sane substitute.
> 
> There isn't one, because it's not needed IMO

That sounds a little like fox-with-no-tail syndrome.  Not quite on a par
with a perl coder who expresses surprise that anybody should want
functions to have typed and named parameters, for example, but up there.

> - most programs don't need 
> additional libraries,

Is it that you never re-use code, or do you just use import statements
all over the place?

Many small programs don't need external libraries.  Many larger ones
benefit hugely from a modular approach.  Properly done, code re-use is
efficient, saves time, reduces the number of bugs etc etc.

> and if you do then really your OS should provide 
> the distribution mechanism.

??? Code distribution isn't an OS function, it's an application-level
activity.  I assume you were using OS as a loose term for "whatever
software stack you have installed on your desktop".  Why is using CPAN
suddenly evil compared to cruder methods cobbled together with ncftp and
the like (if you respond that CPAN is just a crude method cobbled
together with ncftp and the like, I still win this one)?

The advantages that a CPAN-style repository offer, over and above those
inherent in the use of modules, include

	* Encouragement of code re-use and reduction of
	  wheel-reinvention.
	* The opportunity to encourage or enforce standardised testing.

I was going to go on but those two are plenty good, come to think of it.
CPAN doesn't do either of those things perfectly and there's a lot of
crap code on CPAN, but neither of those facts are caused by CPAN's
existence, nor do they invalidate the virtues of the concept.  CPAN is
a fine example of open source developers cooperating effectively for
mutual benefit.  Perl coders are more prone to code re-use than any
others, IME, doing it more regularly and at a higher level than their
peers using other languages and this is entirely due to CPAN. Where
their peers may re-use a lot of in-house code (in the better run
development houses), Perl coders also have re-use and contribute to this
huge communal repository.  Is it just that you hate Perl code so much
that you can't look at the concept independently of the language that it
is distributing?

Even if you don't use modules, plenty of other python coders do and they
would benefit from CPAN for Python.  If you can argue that it would hurt
them and make them worse coders, I would be extremely interested to see
the reasoning.

-- 
Bruce

I see a mouse.  Where?  There, on the stair.  And its clumsy wooden
footwear makes it easy to trap and kill.  -- Harry Hill
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 261 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://mailman.lug.org.uk/pipermail/gllug/attachments/20050428/8f533201/attachment.pgp>
-------------- next part --------------
-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug