<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>Advogato blog for robbe</title>
    <link>http://www.advogato.org/person/robbe/</link>
    <description>Advogato blog for robbe</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <generator>mod_virgule</generator>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Jun 2013 07:48:27 GMT</pubDate>
    <item>
      <pubDate>Wed, 5 Jan 2000 22:39:58 GMT</pubDate>
      <title>5 Jan 2000</title>
      <link>http://www.advogato.org/person/robbe/diary.html?start=0</link>
      <guid>http://www.advogato.org/person/robbe/diary.html?start=0</guid>
      <description>Some days ago I was mad enough to begin hacking on another
project. I decided that it had to be &lt;em&gt;serious&lt;/em&gt; (or
somesuch), so settled on C for the language.

&lt;p&gt; Now, having cobbled together quite a few small contraptions
in Perl, I was amazed that the most widespread language
lacks a resemblance of the mighty CPAN. In other words:
there is no comprehensive repository of C modules each doing
one thing.

&lt;p&gt; There are certainly various libraries doing wonderful deeds,
&lt;em&gt;but&lt;/em&gt;:

&lt;p&gt; &lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;They are spread over the whole world. At least I don't
know
of a site where one can search for e.g. &lt;tt&gt;JPEG&lt;/tt&gt; and
see a number of source files/libraries offering JPEG
(de)compression.

&lt;p&gt; &lt;li&gt;They are a tad to unwieldy. In most cases, I don't care
about a lib that has a million features. I just want, say, a
function that sends a mail over SMTP.
&lt;/ul&gt;

&lt;p&gt; I'm still wondering why CCAN does not exist, yet.

&lt;p&gt; 	Robbe &amp;lt;robbe@orcus.priv.at&amp;gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
