The following are collected from the Perlbuzz Twitter feed.
- Finding circular reference leaks in Perl http://bit.ly/Pg9V3
- How to create drag-n-drop Strawberry Perl programs http://bit.ly/13yVW7
- Could the CPAN become self-aware? http://use.perl.org/~Alias/journal/38945
- Jeffrey Thalhammer on Perlcast: Update on Perl::Critic http://bit.ly/171UfR
- Never trust web form data. http://bit.ly/EAhqF
- Top ten great things about Moose http://bit.ly/139SHg
- The language with the happiest users. COBOL is at the bottom. http://bit.ly/HcvKi
- Basic unit testing with Perl http://bit.ly/dVDe2
- RT @rakudoperl Rakudo now supports WALK, callwith, callsame, nextwith, nextsame, as well as updated versions of .wrap and .unwrap. jnthn++
- The CPAN's new clothes http://rassie.org/archives/250
- Learn mad database skillz at YAPC::NA 2009 http://bit.ly/10FyWq
- An introductory presentation to MooseX::Declare http://bit.ly/t6vy0
I really don't see the benefit in linking to uninformed rants (the CPAN's new clothes)
What's uninformed about it? I don't see anything factually incorrect.
The assumption that github will save us all, for starters. The assumption that it is a single stack of services provided for by "the people who run CPAN". The general non-constructive criticism.
Wishing things will be better based on what a certain individual considers to be better for themselves does not make "news" IMHO. If he actually proposed a solution that involves facts or was trying to change things... sure. But as it stands that post is just unhelpful FUD bait.
Very little up there is "news," really.
So really, your response is "Patches welcome, I don't see you giving code, so your comments aren't valid."
It's not always necessary to provide patches to have a valid point. Maybe his job is just to raise the issues, where others come along and get the work done. See also my rethinking-cpan Google Group.
http://groups.google.com/group/rethinking-cpan
Could you please generate two versions of news roundups: one for twitter with its message length limit, using shortened URL, and one for the web with full, not shortened URL below the description, as in first roundup.
Thanks in advance...