Comments on: PEAR: Its a Vision Thing

By: Nathanael Yoshi

Nathanael Yoshi — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 06:23:35 +0000

It by no means ceases to surprize me that, with a bit of extra browsing on the web, you can uncover a few of the most distinctive blogs. It is frustrating that a great deal more blogs like this, arent listed at the top when I look with yahoo web based, I’ve added you to my bookmarks, I also have a pal, which will really appreciate this page, so ill send them, a link to your web site, too. I am particular they are going to definitely enjoy it.

By: Sophia Goldhaber

Sophia Goldhaber — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 22:23:22 +0000

I discovered your internet site internet webpage online and check some of your early posts. Keep on the superb operate. I lately further encourage RSS feed to my MSN News Reader. Seeking toward reading additional by you down the line!

By: Shaun Aihara

Shaun Aihara — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 12:06:40 +0000

It’s actually a great and useful piece of info. I am happy that you just shared this useful info with us. Please keep us up to date like this. Thanks for sharing.

By: Lukas

Lukas — Fri, 18 Jun 2004 13:46:37 +0000

What we are doing is a tide rope balance. We are open so that more people are willing to commit to our standards. However the absence of a single entity inside PEAR calling all the shots prevents a totaly coherent library. Then again it might make PEAR stronger overall since we are less like microsoft and more like linux that way, which to me is like the difference between genetic engineering and evolution. While I am drifting off now basically evolution is less susceptible to single mistakes, but genetic engineering has the potential of being very efficient and direct while having the risk to destroy anything it touches if a mistake is made. Hmm wonder if I made clear what I was trying to say. Oh well

By: Harry Fuecks

Harry Fuecks — Thu, 10 Jun 2004 19:42:34 +0000

One “problem” with the way PEAR works today is it relies purely on volunteers coming forward and proposing something. That probably suits the Open Source model but it might be interesting to experiment with a “most wanted” list: packages that PEAR core team think need doing. With the comes the possibility of doing some research / design up front, in specifying requirements.