On Aug 5, 6:56 ¨Βν¬ ΆΝαςτιΔεΝεμμοΆ Όναςτιξδενε®®®ΐηναιμ®γονχςοτεΊ
> http://blog.jrock.us/articles/You%20are%20missing%20the%20point%20of%...
>
> Great article on perl and cpan. I was all ready to say "yeah, ruby has
> libraries too - maybe not the tens of thousands cpan has, but i can
> usually find what i want" until I read this paragraph:

There are about 14,000 libraries on CPAN, not "tens of thousands".
There are about 8,000 Ruby libraries between RubyForge and the RAA.

>
>  ¨Βθε ινποςταξτθιξαβουΠεςμ ισ τθατ χε θαφε γυμτυςοζ χςιτιξ> good libraries. No Perl programmer would write a few lines of code,
> post it to a blog, and call it a "library". Everyone feels obligated
> to create a CPAN distribution, with documentation (sometimes a bit on
> the minimal side, but not everyone is a writer), a test suite, a
> Makefile, etc. I'm not sure why, but this always happens. I think it's
> because there is a strong convention, and tools that make following
> the convention easy.

Between RubyForge, RDoc and Rubygems I think we've got a pretty good
culture going. He mostly seems to be complaining about the fact that
some Rails users have a habit of posting code online instead of
packaging it.

> He's right

<snip>

He's wrong. He's also a Perl programmer deeply steeped in Perl (has
many modules on CPAN), is not a polyglot programmer as far as I can
tell, and has a book on Catalyst to sell you.

Plus, 212 modules? Oof.

Regards,

Dan, former Perl programmer