RSS | Module Info | Add a review of bioperl

bioperl (1.5.2_RC4)

Awkward interface, O(n^2) performance where you don't expect it... Try to roll your own before using this module.

seano - 2006-11-18 12:31:23
Was this review helpful to you?  Yes No

bioperl (1.4)

Good news: bioperl is fairly complete and correct, as far as I can tell.

Bad news: it's absolute agony to use, making easy things hard, and hard things slow. A few points:
* The interface is a twisty little maze of objects, all alike.
* Many methods are unnecessarily slow.
* Some formats (e.g. BLAST) are incompletely supported.
* The documentation "follows standards", which means that many of the less-used bits are documented with a pile of uninformative but mandatory boilerplate.
* For simple tasks, it's usually easier to roll your own than to wade through the docs.

Other modules are a better bet if they meet your needs -- see e.g. Chemistry::* and Boulder::* .

Sean O'Rourke - 2005-03-01 11:22:13
Was this review helpful to you?  Yes No

bioperl (1.4)

Biased reviewer....

Jason Stajich - 2004-08-16 21:13:20
Was this review helpful to you?  Yes No

bioperl (1.4)

*The* bundle if you have something to do with bioinformatics. Only thing i feel pitty is that most functionality would have been better a standalone module. Because not everything BIO only in there.

Murat Uenalan - 2004-03-31 07:43:50
Was this review helpful to you?  Yes No

Perl.org sites : bugs | dev | history | jobs | learn | lists | use © Copyright 2002-2010 The Perl Foundation Site Information and Contacts root: (Vh | Vc)