From: "Hal E. Fulton" Date: 2002-10-30T13:57:00+09:00 Subject: Re: good link to read as we contemplate RAA, RAA.succ, et al ----- Original Message ----- From: "Daniel Berger" To: "ruby-talk ML" Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 1:58 PM Subject: Re: good link to read as we contemplate RAA, RAA.succ, et al > dblack@candle.superlink.net wrote: > > > Hi -- > > > > On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Pat Eyler wrote: > > > > > http://www.onlamp.com/pub/wlg/2225 > > > > Interesting. Simon (hi Simon!) is probably right that "Definitive > > [library module] names discourage wheel reinvention." The problem, > > though, is that such an approach means that whoever writes the *first* > > module called "XML::Parser" or "Text::Soundex" (or whatever) ends up > > having written the definitive one, whether it's any good or not. > > > > (I guess one could then write and contribute "XML::Parser::Good", but > > somehow that doesn't entirely address the difficulty :-) > > > > David > > David, > > I think you'll find that people are rather good at policing themselves in > this regard. It rarely happens that a definitive name gets used by some > newbie who doesn't put out quality code. Even if that situation *does* > occur, it can be resolved in a few different ways: > > 1) A more experienced author requests the name from the original author > (or offers *lots* of, uh, "patches") > 2) A similar name is used, or the name is changed and/or slightly to get > the point across- e.g. Net::SSH (worthless) and Net::SSH::Perl (awesome) > 3) The author has an "accident" and someone else takes over the namespace > - JUST KIDDING! Well, sometimes it's not "bad" code, just a difference in philosophy. For example, weren't there two fairly good XML parsers before REXML? And isn't REXML the definitive one now? Hal