Okay, that to me is a much better response. You raise some valid points rather than dismissing my reply out of hand. Reading something like this is meaningful to me. Thank you :)
The person made it clear that they weren't terribly familiar with modules, so I don't know that I would bring up issues such as tie and autoloading, but that's not a reason not to bring them up. If someone asks a beginner question, I guess that I'm more inclined to give a basic answer.
The only nit that I'd pick with what you wrote is when you claim that "modularisation has little or nothing to do with correctness." Strictly speaking, this is correct. If I am building a large system and I repeat the same, perfectly correct snippet in 30 different places in the code, everything runs fine. However, when my business rules change and I need to change those 30 instances, then I would argue that while the code may have been correct, the design was not. Further, with a well designed and modularized system, the benchmarking is easier and when different sections of the code are properly decoupled, fine-tuning a particular section is much easier. Heck, if done right, you could even use XS for the nasty bits, but I probably wouldn't bring that up, either ...
The code and the design of the code go hand in hand. Even if the code is correct, the design might not be and I think that's important to stress. Other than that, I think you raised some good points.
Cheers,
Ovid
New address of my CGI Course.
Silence is Evil (feel free to copy and distribute widely - note copyright text)
In reply to Re: Re: Re(3)Module Efficiency (with a side order of facts, please)
by Ovid
in thread Module Efficiency
by Coplan
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |