Re: Perl 6 modules plan

On Sat, Aug 11, 2001 at 03:51:22PM -0400, Kirrily Robert wrote:
> [ moving to perl6-stdlib only; -meta doesn't need this. ]
> 
> Jarkko wrote:
> >> Sys:: should be declared redundant and silly.  Sys::Syslog simply
> >> hurts my teeth.
> >
> >Text:: is another silliness, though from for slightly different
> >reasons.  The problem with Text:: is that it awfully vague, and thusly
> >carries almost no information.
> 
> Yup, to both points.
> 
> While we're at it, I think that ExtUtils:: really needs renaming.
> Nobody talks about "Perl extensions", they talk about modules.  Or
> possibly just about Perl.  I actually think the stuff in ExtUtils would
> be better off in Devel:: with the other developer tools.

While you are at it you should consider redoing the APIs etc. so that they
match. ie some consistency between method names and variable names, calling
conventions etc...

Also the PODs should be all written in the same style.

Very early on in the perl6 process I did some analysis of the current
standard library and it is surprising how inconsistent it is.

With perl6 being distributed with very few modules and SDKs it should
open the doors for us to do this. That is have one SDK that is 100%
compatible with the perl5 library, but another which is considered
better (or more consistent)

IMO with a more consistent library more companies are likely to give
perl a closer look. The way things are now I think perl suffers because
it does not present itself as a single product, but an app with a lot
of libraries thrown around it.

Graham.