Re: The Nature of PEAR's Greatness

Hi, just spent the last 30 minutes or so reading this thread and of course I reply to Paul's initiative, what I do like about PEAR (some people here already know what I do not like too much, but this might be something for another initiative). Installer: Although I had to tweak some systems in order to get it work (however that was months ago ;) ), I do like the installer. It checks dependencies and has package management and is much more intuitive to use than PPM (IMVHO). Also, it is possible to do a manual installation, so the user does have the choice. Coding standards/naming conventions/error handling: This of course is a matter of taste, but the presence of those is a good thing (TM) IMO. It just helps to let PEAR look consistent. Categorization: Well, even phpcl*sses does that IIRC ;-) What I also like is PEAR group -- if offers some kind of regulation, but not too much. One could discuss in length about some of the decisions of the group, but that's not the point. Just that there is a group that can make decisions on short notice in case of problems is a good thing -- and I also do not think that PEAR is over-regulated. I like the PEAR website, both for end users and for developers. I also do like the documentation about how to contribute. Ok, trying to find out how to provide Docbook docs is a PITA, but have you ever read the "how to contribute" document of CPAN? Just my two 0.02 Euro-cents, and have a Happy Easter! Christian