RSS | Module Info | Add a review of perl

perl (0.0017)

Some historical background -- around 1 May 2007, HOOO uploaded a distribution named "perl". Most of the negative comments are referring to this:

http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl5.porters/2007/05/msg123976.html

The module in question was a pragma called "perl" which exported Perl6::Say into your namespace.

Jonathan T. Rockway - 2007-05-03 01:40:24
Was this review helpful to you?  Yes No

perl (5.8.8)

This is a worst name module ever.

Joaquin Ferrero - 2007-05-03 01:28:54
Was this review helpful to you?  Yes No

perl (5.8.8)

I don't know what you are taking about. Aristotle Pagaltzis is right. I like Perl a lot, but its documentation sucks. They look like a lot of books from the long history that added this and that here and there. I use for almost 10 years for my daily work, advocate it over other solutions like PHP. But still, I can hardly find what I want for a new feature I want to know about. I can still remember how hard until I found the right document for threading, perlre, perlipc. And I still can lost among them just to find a simple tip. The documentation is a terrible maze. I cannot imagine how I live with them if I have no offline copy of perldoc.perl.org and my "grep".

If only there can be something like GNU glibc texinfo documents that has chapters, sections, concept index, keyword index, etc..

imacat - 2007-05-01 13:05:06
Was this review helpful to you?  Yes No

perl (5.8.7)

Too many modules are "unreviewable" because the CPAN page that contains the review link is actually the CPAN page for Perl itself.

Lee Goddard - 2005-10-06 01:15:12
Was this review helpful to you?  Yes No

perl (5.8.6)

This rating is just symbolic. :-)

In actual fact, I don't believe Perl deserves 5 stars on all counts (documentation, interface, ease of use); it doesn't even really deserve them in any one count. (To be sure, none of them deserves less than 3 stars either.) But it is a big distribution, with *many* separate things to review. A lot more than three criteria would be required to even attempt a real review, and they'd need a finer scale than 1-5 stars too, and a review wouldn't fit in this margin anyway.

So I give it 5 stars for the great things it has accomplished and continues to accomplish, rather than for what it is, and I think that is perfectly justified.

Aristotle Pagaltzis - 2005-01-14 14:07:43
Was this review helpful to you?  Yes No

perl (5.8.5)

perl is, of course, teh r0xx0r ;)

Justin Mason - 2004-08-02 17:14:54
Was this review helpful to you?  Yes No

perl (5.8.8)

Perl has:
A. Allowed me to be employed and therefore survive.
B. Allowed me to realize every algorithmic task I make for myself.
Thank you Larry.

Gene Boggs - 2004-02-22 10:16:02
Was this review helpful to you?  Yes No

perl (5.8.3)

Modules get lost without a course ...

Kevin Alisch - 2004-02-19 07:52:42
Was this review helpful to you?  Yes No

perl (5.8.0)

Perl is one of the few tools I've used constantly since I learned it over 10 years ago. Its uses are many and varied. With each new version, documentation is added or clarified and new features are added that allow perl to be used in an ever-widening array of situations. Perl 5.8.0 is great! I highly recommend it to anyone.

Jonathan Scott Duff - 2003-08-13 08:47:00
Was this review helpful to you?  Yes No

perl (5.8.0)

Excellent distribution. Without this CPAN just would not be able to exist

Graham Barr - 2003-08-13 06:34:11
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)