[Dbix-class] 4/5 Why Matt's proposal is a farce

[David Cantrell]

On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 07:27:03PM +0200, Peter Rabbitson wrote:

> Words are cheap. Let's look at the record instead: In the past several 
> years mst has been directly responsible ( single-handedly or in part ) 
> for the following:
> 
> - Shoving FATAL-ized warnings down CPAN's users throats. After years of 
> incessant pushback finally semi-relented[1], but still continues to 
> insert it into his CPAN projects to this day.

This is not necessarily a bad thing.

In fact I've done it myself. First I deprecated a feature in the
documentation. Then a while later I made it emit a warning. Then another
while later I got rid of it which, if people were still using the
deprecated feature, made their code die. Getting rid of the deprecated
features made the code simpler and easier to understand, and so less
likely to be a bug-laden piece of crap.

And this is software whose users *must* keep it up to date for it to be
useful. Unlike with DBIx::Class, whose users can quite happily keep
using an old version if they don't want new features, users of
Number::Phone will get wrong results if they don't keep up to date. And
those wrong results will cost them money, because they're using it to do
things like bill their customers and route phone calls.

-- 
David Cantrell | Nth greatest programmer in the world

You can't spell "slaughter" without "laughter"