Re: To USE or not to USE

It's rare that a successful program doesn't gather feature requests like flies. A module provides a guide and a tested library for a problem domain. Good ideas are likely to be supported.

One of the biggest modules in perl is POSIX.pm, but it is commonly used for just a single sub from it. The weight of the module on your program is controlled by the import mechanism.

You wouldn't reject using libc if you were calling less than half of it, would you? How did you get that figure?

After Compline,
Zaxo

Comment on Re: To USE or not to USE

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: To USE or not to USE by draconis (Scribe) on Jul 22, 2003 at 14:38 UTC
Zaxo, I got that number (50%) from no where really - just trying to isolate a standard, and/or determine if a standard is even really necessary. Everyone so far has made very valid points and I would most definetely not re-write portions of POSIX.pm or the DBI, etc. I think that would be a foolish thing to pursue since they work well. I was hoping to see what the "mindset" is among the monks and from the community in regard to this topic. I know from other languages this issue is an issue - and I am glad to see that with Perl that is not the case. *Just another reason to write in Perl !	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re: Re: To USE or not to USE
by draconis (Scribe) on Jul 22, 2003 at 14:38 UTC

I got that number (50%) from no where really - just trying to isolate a standard, and/or determine if a standard is even really necessary.

Everyone so far has made very valid points and I would most definetely not re-write portions of POSIX.pm or the DBI, etc. I think that would be a foolish thing to pursue since they work well.

I was hoping to see what the "mindset" is among the monks and from the community in regard to this topic. I know from other languages this issue is an issue - and I am glad to see that with Perl that is not the case. *Just another reason to write in Perl !

[reply]