On Sat, Jun 25, 2005 at 10:32:41AM -0400, Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote: > If somebody could offer some *constructive* criticism of PEAR -- PEAR as > it is TODAY, not "3 years ago, when I last tried it" -- these comments > would have more weight. As it is, I feel they're just FUD based on > ignorance. The documentation for some of the less well known packages is poor or non-existant, or at least that's what I've always noticed and has been my major bug bear with PEAR for a long time. For example, I want to use the DB_Pager module but there is *no* end user documentation, all I have to work with is some poorly formatted information pulled from the API comments. There are also a lot of packages (again, less well known ones) that haven't been updated in a long time, in some cases several years. I'm not saying that PEAR in general is a stale project, or that it's no good (on the contrary, I use several of the packages on my sites and they're very useful), but I do get the feeling that the non-core packages have been left to rot both in terms of updates and documentation. I've used both PEAR and CPAN for a few years now and I've noticed that CPAN tends to win hands down in terms of documentation and updates. That might just be down to the particular packages I've happened to use but given a choice I know which one I'd rather use. Paul -- Rogue Tory http://www.roguetory.org.uk -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
