----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Daniel Berger" <djberge / qwest.com>
To: "ruby-talk ML" <ruby-talk / ruby-lang.org>
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