Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
laziness, impatience, and hubris
 
PerlMonks  

Re: Negative module recommendations

by Ovid (Cardinal)
on Dec 10, 2005 at 23:59 UTC ( [id://515765]=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Negative module recommendations

zby wrote:

Data::Dumper::Simple - this is a nice module, but it uses source filters so it's correctness is much less sure than more traditional modules.

You are absolutely correct that it uses a source filter. However, I not only state this clearly in the documentation, I also note that this module is for debugging. For that purpose, it's well-suited to its task. I have never recommended it for any other purpose.

As an alternative, you can try my Data::Dumper::Names. This module does not use a source filter, it's much more limited and sometimes does not provide correct output. However, I've never received any clear bug reports which isolates the problem and since there's not much interest in it, I haven't really pursued it.

Cheers,
Ovid

New address of my CGI Course.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Negative module recommendations
by tinita (Parson) on Dec 11, 2005 at 16:00 UTC
    for the same goal, letting Data::Dumper dump out with the variable name, i wrote a little vi mapping:

    :imap dumper <ESC>^iwarn Data::Dumper->Dump([\<ESC>llyw$a], ['<ESC>pa']);<ESC>

    type in

    my @array = function(); @arraydumper
    and get
    my @array = function(); warn Data::Dumper->Dump([\@array], ['array']);

    i use this regularly, it's a real help for debugging.

Re^2: Negative module recommendations
by zby (Vicar) on Dec 11, 2005 at 09:44 UTC
    I did use Data::Dumper::Simple for debugging and it was breaking on my code. That consumed no less time than if I used it for other purposes. When you look for bugs in your code you'd rather rely on your debugging tools otherwise the whole operation becomes too chaotic. With due respect to all of your other CPAN modules I would not recommend this one.

      I guess it would have been nice if you'd have posted a bug report. I realise that sometimes time constraints don't allow for writing up a sensible bug report with all necessary information, but if you really like the module that would have been the way to go IMO.

      That's also my reaction to your OP, there are two good ways of constructively criticising a module. If you think it's irredeemably broken or ill conceived you can say so on cpanratings and give detailed reasons. Otherwise, if you think the module is good in principle but is lacking a feature or has a bug you can file a bug report/wishlist on RT and help the author improve it. Your notion of helping users pick the right module is a good one (and the wish of a more reliable quality rating for CPAN modules is often expressed), but ultimately it's more worthwhile to worry about the code rather than the "marketing" (used here in the loosest possible sense).


      Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it. -- Brian W. Kernighan
        What I need to add is that writing bug reports for bugs in source filters is sometimes very difficult, expecially if you don't want to send whole of your, perhaps emabarassing or difficult to explain, module.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Domain Nodelet?
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://515765]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this?Last hourOther CB clients
Other Users?
Others exploiting the Monastery: (6)
As of 2024-03-28 22:15 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    No recent polls found