The module could be very useful tool but it is almost unusable due to very bad performance. For example drawing a table which has 350 rows and 10 columns takes ~60 seconds on Intel(R) Xeon(R) 1.86GHz. I did a quick glance on code and my impression is that it has O(x^2) complexity where x is number of rows what obviously doesn't scale very well. It seems the author is aware of the problem as one of comments in the source code says "This function must be totally rewritten one day, it is really slow, and ... dumb. ;)"
2 out of 2 found this review helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Yes No
Simple modules for very simple things are useful sometimes (I use
File::Slurp regularly for example). So I don't mind this module being
on CPAN as *long* as it is renamed. As other reviews said it has
*nothing* to do with Unix and if it had it still has no rights to
occupy top level namespace. As Chris Reinhardt suggested it should be
named like Proc::Pipe::Simple - quite clear descriptive name (Proc for
module category, Pipe for what it does, Simple for simplicity of the
interface). Lowest rating for bad naming.
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No