[chromatic]

I'm not going to google the rest but if they don't have one there is no reason why they can't.

That somehow fails to convince me that other language ecosystems parallel the CPAN in breadth, scope, maturity, and ecosystem. See CPAN Testers, for example.

[derrickpetzold]

Oh my apologies I wasn't trying to convince anyone of anything if that's what you are thinking. I was only stating fact based on my experience but that's okay just downvote this and make yourself right.

[kamaal]

Nobody was down voting you to make themselves right. But the remarks that you made about CPAN to be frank didn't make any sense at all to anybody who has worked with CPAN seriously over years.

Both in terms of quantity and quality CPAN beats any other scripting ecosystem by a very great margin. And its really not about the number of the modules. That many number of modules would not have been possible if Perl(syntax, extensions system) was not flexible enough to allow them.

The traditional approach used by languages is to first build a set of semantics define a syntax and standard library for it. Then any other development in that language happens through frameworks and libraries. Perl is special in this case that Perl allows syntax extensions through modules. There fore you will find not just Modules to do your task, but also modules that add and extend to exiting Perl syntax with sugar. Perl 6 extends this concept further through grammars.

How often and how many language are there today(Counting Python and Ruby especially) that can add something like Moose(Moosex extensions) and other syntactical extension to their language, without breaking backwards compatibility?

Python took around 8 years and broke backwards compatibility to make as little changes as context of a for loop and print statement. Now imagine what it would take Python to fix its object system or its scoping problems.

[derrickpetzold]

Thank you for the excellent reply. That was response I was hoping for. I don't know everything and I appreciate you talking on point and not just pressing the down arrow because someone said something you don't like.

Regards,

[berntb]

>>... not just pressing the down arrow because someone said something you don't like.

Sigh... :-)

He started:

>>Nobody was down voting you to make themselves right. But the remarks that you made about CPAN to be frank didn't make any sense [etc]

Are you really surprised about the down votes...?

[derrickpetzold]

> Sigh... :-)

I honestly have no idea what you mean by that :).

> Are you really surprised about the down votes...?

For that post of course not. For the others yes.

I can only assume you are coming from this viewpoint

"Please avoid introducing classic flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say about them."

and no I don't think I had anything genuinely new to bring but I how could I know about something I didn't know about.

I guess what I am really saying if people can't acknowledge the flaws in a thing how could they ever make it better. And to say even more if they can't vocalize their reasoning how does downvoting make it okay but I am sure that is another thing I have missed.

[berntb]

>>I can only assume you are coming from this viewpoint

My trivial point was that your claim about the down votes was contradicted in the first sentences. It seems you missed that, too.

>>if people can't acknowledge the flaws in a thing

Quite fun to do personal attacks like that after such creative way of misreading.

Edit: Sorry for wasting time/space, I am easily trolled.