Alias writes "Someone that I've been talking to about YAML::Tiny in email asked my opinion on CPAN's JSON modules, and whether or not I had any plans to write a JSON::Tiny as well.
I replied at the time that I had no idea, since I had never really taken a good look at JSON-related modules before, and I only created ::Tiny modules where ALL the existing options were either bloated or XS-based, and there was a genuine need for a ::Tiny module.
And so far I think I've managed to hold the suffix to that standard reasonably well.
Having a look around the various JSON modules however, it does indeed seem like all the JSON modules are indeed bloated or XS.
Personally, I don't need JSON::Tiny (we'll probably go with JSON::XS for this project by the looks, since XS is fine and it's close to a user interface and so the raw speed is important).
But by the looks of things there may well be a suitable case to be made for a JSON::Tiny, assuming someone can come up with a suitable API (personally I'd clone the Config::Tiny one) and a suitably small implementation...
(Disclaimer: This is NOT going to be the Vertical Metre of Beer challenge) :)"
Re:Question
tsee on 2007-09-11T16:38:50
Well, no, Adam isn't the master of
::Tiny. He's just...
... the one who coined the term. ... the one who's going to come after you if you rebrand & upload SOAP::Lite as SOAP::Tiny. :) ... one of the PAUSE admins who process modules list registrations and give advice on choice of namespace. Re:Question
Alias on 2007-09-12T02:12:12
"Guardian" perhaps?
Or maybe "Brand Manager":)
As a suffix that I intended to be optimised for human factors (ease of installation, simple to use, and so on) I consider it an integral part of this that someone can see some::Tiny module and trust that it does what it says, and that it's not just another ::Lite.
That's in addition to the CPAN admin's natural dislike for naming bloat. If the::Tiny suffix means something SPECIFIC, then it creates certainty and clarity around the meaning of it.
