From: Simon Cozens <simon@...>
Date: 2003-01-23T11:02:21+09:00
Subject: Re: Can we attack the 'not enough libraries' thing straight on?

dblack@candle.superlink.net writes:
> Also, I would advocate not getting embroiled in issues of naming,
> specifically hierarchical module naming (text/soundex,
> algorithms/sort/qsort, etc.)

David, I respect you and I agree with you; but on this point I have to
differ. As I've said several times in the past, if people don't use
authoritative names for modules, they'll use cutesy names, and you'll
never know that Foozilla is a module to parse SGML. I know that if I
go to CPAN and get something called SGML::Parser then it's reasonably 
likely to be a SGML parser. Naming is important! 

Please, let's not forget lessons we learnt - even today: someone was
asking for a Ruby Lisp interpreter. Now, what would that be called? 
Language::LISP? Scheme.rb? No, of course, it was given the eminently
sensible name of Rouge, from which one could determine, well,
absolutely nothing at all, except that it might have something to do
with makeup. Naming is important!

The things that CPAN has that Ruby doesn't have:
        1) sensibly named modules
        2) reasonably comprehensive documentation
        3) that's it. Go forth and hackify.

-- 
In a sense Christianity is like Jazz - if you need to ask the questions
you won't understand the answers.
    - Bob Billing