Re: Template Proposal

Dietrich Ayala wrote: > 2. PEAR *isn't* trying to be CPAN, illustrated wonderfully by the > template API debate (which also illustrated that PEAR is different > things to different people). After listening to the template debate, > I'm favoring choice over unified API; can't find enough reasons to > *not* have several PEAR template engines: different strokes fo > different folks. Won't CPAN be abandoned for Perl 6 because it grew too big? Choice is one thing, fragmentation and bloat are the other side. I'd rather go for a few classes that are useful for many people than many classes each of which is useful to a few people. PEAR is not a repository for classes that somebody wrote and consideres useful. Usually they are, but that's not the point. PEAR is meant to be a collection of highly reusable, well designed and generic classes. This means that many classes in PEAR had to be build from scratch to achieve this high quality, but going for quality instead of quantity is a good thing, IMHO. regards Wagner -- "Ein Mathematiker ist eine Maschine, die Kaffee in Theoreme verwandelt." Paul Erdös, Mathematiker, 1913-1996