Ummm ... that is a good argument as to why one shouldn't use a deprecated synactic construct which has the possibility of breaking previously-working code for unrelated reasons.
The point is that code should be as bullet-proof as possible. Rearranging the order of module inclusion should never break anything. Ever. Period. If, by using DO vs. IO syntax, I can mathematically prove that rearranging said order will not break my code and I can mathematically prove that it will by using IO ... it seems to me that it's a no-brainer.
Now, this argument may not be as critical to you, depending on the size and complexity of the applications you work with. In my opinion, once you get beyond, say, 10 minutes of explanation to a competent new-hire - that's when IO just shouldn't be used. Otherwise, it probably won't matter. (But, I'm not going to bet my money on that "probably" and anyone who bets their employer's money on that is, in my opinion, irresponsible.)
------
We are the carpenters and bricklayers of the Information Age.
Don't go borrowing trouble. For programmers, this means Worry only about what you need to implement.
Please remember that I'm crufty and crochety. All opinions are purely mine and all code is untested, unless otherwise specified.
In reply to Re9: OO style: Placement of "new"
by dragonchild
in thread OO style: Placement of "new"
by crenz
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |