[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Lua library bank? (Was: Ruby philosophy vs Lua philosophy
- From: William Ahern <william@...>
- Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 12:32:48 -0800
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 09:04:05PM +0100, Petite Abeille wrote:
> On Feb 28, 2013, at 11:39 AM, Dirk Laurie <email@example.com> wrote:
> > I don't think anybody seriously means "like Python." Python is
> > way past "batteries included". It's reached the stage of "any old
> > junk repackaged".
> Ah! Indeed.
> Case in point… say one implements an IMAP server [sic]… nothing fancy,
> just the core IMAP4rev1 specification… which is about 10 year old this
> year… anyhow… for testing purpose, one rounds up the usual suspects… the
> UW c‑client library as a baseline … and the latest in Java, Perl, Python,
> and Ruby… they all sport some sort of IMAP client module
> "out-of-the-box"... battery included and all… great… piece of cake.
> But, nay, all these packages fail miserably at the most basic
> interoperability level… none of them implement the spec properly… none…
> epic fail.
> Only the UW c‑client library complies to the spec with flying color…
> honorable mention for the Perl module as well… which was not as
> dysfunctional as the other assorted clowns…
This is where CPAN's size and age helps, I think. Most code is crap, I think
we can all agree, for a multitude of reasons. But there are just more gems
in CPAN than in, say, RubyGems.