Re: Reinventing the wheel: Dumper Difficulties

7 years in the auto industry has taught me that to re-invent a wheel is not enough. To be widely adopted that wheel has to fit existing axles, fenders, and suspensions as well as be familiar enough to mechanics -- with their tools -- who are ultimately the best salespeople of aftermarket equipment.

Do you have switch and output compatability modes to plug into code that already uses DD or DD? *hint* *hint*

PS:

Oh and if anyone is wondering what the RT means in the variable names, it stands for root.

Then waste the two bytes and call it root. :)

Comment on Re: Reinventing the wheel: Dumper Difficulties

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Reinventing the wheel: Dumper Difficulties by demerphq (Chancellor) on Apr 11, 2002 at 08:54 UTC
Do you have switch and output compatability modes to plug into code that already uses DD or DD? hint hint Well, as you can see from my current example I support the Data::Dump style interface and not the Data::Dumper interface. However Im sure I can include a wrapper that emulates Data::Dumper functionality. Although I have to say that my intention is not so much to create a drop in replacement for either (although it should be up to job) but rather a development tool for trying to visualize and analyze data structures. Part of the reason that I take this perspective is that many trade-off decisions have been made in favor of analytical and presentational flexibility and utility and not to speed or memory overhead type concerns. So if you have to serialize a few million data structures then Data::BFDump is probably not the place to go (unless of course you are dumping structures that would be affected by the bugs I mentioned earlier.) OTOH if you are trying to figure out what data structure is being used by a new module, or why you keep getting weird results with that funky data structure you are developing then my tool will probably be exactly what you want to use. Then waste the two bytes and call it root. :) Honest I tried it. Trouble is that there are two prefixes used "BF" and "RT", and then the vars can be numbered as well so if I use ROOT explicitly in some situations the variable names get quite long indeed... Maybe Ill make it an option though. Compromise eh? :-) Yves / DeMerphq --- Writing a good benchmark isnt as easy as it might look.	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re: Re: Reinventing the wheel: Dumper Difficulties
by demerphq (Chancellor) on Apr 11, 2002 at 08:54 UTC

Do you have switch and output compatability modes to plug into code that already uses DD or DD? *hint* *hint*

Well, as you can see from my current example I support the Data::Dump style interface and not the Data::Dumper interface. However Im sure I can include a wrapper that emulates Data::Dumper functionality.

Although I have to say that my intention is not so much to create a drop in replacement for either (although it should be up to job) but rather a development tool for trying to visualize and analyze data structures. Part of the reason that I take this perspective is that many trade-off decisions have been made in favor of analytical and presentational flexibility and utility and not to speed or memory overhead type concerns.

So if you have to serialize a few million data structures then Data::BFDump is probably not the place to go (unless of course you are dumping structures that would be affected by the bugs I mentioned earlier.) OTOH if you are trying to figure out what data structure is being used by a new module, or why you keep getting weird results with that funky data structure you are developing then my tool will probably be exactly what you want to use.

Then waste the two bytes and call it root. :)

Honest I tried it. Trouble is that there are two prefixes used "BF" and "RT", and then the vars can be numbered as well so if I use ROOT explicitly in some situations the variable names get quite long indeed...

Maybe Ill make it an option though. Compromise eh? :-)

Yves / DeMerphq
---
Writing a good benchmark isnt as easy as it might look.

[reply]