Re: Stop spreading PEAR FUD; WAS Re: [PHP] Re: PHP web archeticture

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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


[Index of Archives]     [PHP Home]     [Apache Users]     [PHP on Windows]     [Kernel Newbies]     [PHP Install]     [PHP Classes]     [Pear]     [Postgresql]     [Postgresql PHP]     [PHP on Windows]     [PHP Database Programming]     [PHP SOAP]

  Powered by Linux