> CPAN is great, but also horrible. There are so many packages that do the same thing IMO, that's a good thing. Imagine having only one choice at any layer in

> CPAN is great, but also horrible. There are so many packages that do the same thing IMO, that's a good thing. Imagine having only one choice at any layer in society (to make my example extreme): one type of house, one type of car, one type of computer, on type of OS, one type of file system, one type of programming language etc. > Want OO? Use Moose, or Moo, or Mouse or whatever else. This is true; no built-in "proper" OO has been a pain for Perl for a long time. However, I've used to love Mouse (like Moose, but a trillion times faster), and I've never had any problems with it. There are plans to inject proper OO into Perl, though.[1] > Then hope that the one you picked will continue to be maintained. This is my biggest problem. I wish there was a "system" of sorts that let _groups of people_ adopt/take over a Perl module and Just Fix It (tm). Having only one person take over a module/package isn't good enough; there must be more people involved in fixing things. One good example is Crypt::Curve25519[2] which could/should have been fixed years ago, but because the maintainer is inactive, it won't happen. And now we're back to where we started: because things doesn't get fixed, people create their own versions of CPAN packages just for the F[ix|uck] of it. [1] https://dev.to/ovid/bringing-modern-oo-to-perl-51ak https://dev.to/ovid/bringing-modern-oo-to-perl-51ak [2] https://metacpan.org/pod/Crypt::Curve25519 https://metacpan.org/pod/Crypt::Curve25519