3 ms·
Once there was an idea in perl-land, that we should take 150 or so different little modules, package them together and make a Big Monolithic Release with Lots O
by mst 18y ago
Once there was an idea in perl-land, that we should take 150 or so different little modules, package them together and make a Big Monolithic Release with Lots Of Stuff in it.
They thought they'd call it Perl on Poles.
Then we realised that big monolithic releases were a good idea in the same way as vista was a good idea, and went back to depending on the exact things we needed for our app, conveniently cut up so we could depend on lots of little libraries rather than one giant one that contained lots of stuff we never used.
I'm sorry you find a culture of software reuse an argument against a language. Here, let me sell you this dot net - fifty pee and a windows license.
- nailer 18y agoYour post is a troll. He's not complaining about using modules. He's complaining about using one hundred and fifty modules, and you're attacking him on an argument he's not making. Your last statement is especially childish. See 'be civil' at http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- mst 18y agoBugger. I was aiming for sarcastic hyperbole rather than trolling. Sorry. I'm trying to attack the idea that using lots of small modules is worse than having a few big dependencies - CPAN dependency chains often -look- big because we try to break things down into the smallest unit of viable reuse. It's a bit more work but it's part of what makes CPAN so effective a toolkit. If you want, re-read my post and try and mentally apply a deadpan english voice with more than a hint of sarcasm and see if that makes up for my poor phrasing.