Well... hopefully R6 will pull things together a bit.
Personally I'm not a real fan of cpan. The qualilty is sort of hit and miss.
I like python's approach better. The standard library is robust and broad enough to handle most things.
I like python's approach better. The standard library is robust and broad enough to handle most things.
Do you mean "R7"? Because R6 seems to have actually done the opposite.
> Personally I'm not a real fan of cpan. The qualilty is sort of hit and miss.
The hit-or-miss quality is a necessary "evil" for having something as good as the CPAN. Yes, it's got a lot of crap, but there are a lot of gems that save many people a lot of work.
> I like python's approach better. The standard library is robust and broad enough to handle most things.
It has been said that the Python standard lib is where modules go to die. Guido himself has implied [^1] that modules in the std lib already have one foot in the grave.
[^1]: http://tarekziade.wordpress.com/2010/03/03/the-fate-of-distu...
The future of successful general purpose languages is to have a small core with a vibrant external "CPAN". There just aren't enough core developers to maintain a large high-quality batteries-included standard library of modules. Much better is a dedicated loosely-coupled mostly active community of maintainers -- maintaining the bits that they are personally interested in (which is exactly what the CPAN has).