in reply to Re^3: How Large Does Your Project Have To Be to Justify Using Moose? (modular)
in thread How Large Does Your Project Have To Be to Justify Using Moose?

design the interface first


I take that one step further. Design the code that will use the class first, and the interface will, for the most part(*), fall out of the use case provided by that design.

(*) Once the interface has been implemented for the specific, real-world use case, it is often possible to see small changes that can be applied to generalise it for a wider set of use cases, without compromising its effectiveness and efficiency for the one real use case. These are then a no-brainer to adopt.

From my observations, the problem is that far to often people set out to define a class without having some real-world use case to satisfy. The result is that they end up trying to write a generic interface to satisfy all (their) conceived use cases, with the result that they become overburdened with configurability and flexibility and end up being over-engineered and heavy. Carrying the weight of generality that is never exercised. Non-optimal for all use cases.

I don't lay this designer problem at the door of tool-sets like Moose, but it certainly does not discourage it.

With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.