We are not interested in how fast our code is?
Who is the "we" here?
You tell me. It's the same we as in your
In most cases, we're only interested in whether the car will bring us from A to B (run as expected). We're generally not (as much) interested in how fast it does it, let alone how the car looks. For all we want, it could be a crate with four wheels, if it runs, it runs.

Perl Mon(k|ger)s? That's not really your average Perl programmer, is it? In my experience, people only start to worry about efficiency when they have to wait for it when they feel they shouldn't have to wait for it.
I have noticed that many Perl people are obsessed about speed. Whether it's people newbies asking "What is the best way to do X", where if you ask them what "best way" means is "the fastest" way, to seasoned visitors of this site who scold you for using map because for is 3% faster on their particular machine. Why do you think Benchmark is a popular module?

Most of us programmers are obsessed with speed. Would you buy a 1 GHz CPU if you can get a 2 GHz CPU for just a few Euros more? If so, then you're an exception.

if the need arises I can always change it for code to be reusable (which if the code is simple and modular, not to hard)
To me, that means you already have taken re-usability into account. Because you make your code modular.

Actually, the main reason for making my code modular is for the opposite reason: it makes it easier to throw away code and replace it with something new.

This (needing a test-suite, ed) sounds simple, but this is very, very hard.
Yes, but is that a reason not to build test-suites?
No, I never said anything like that. I just pointed out that even with a mega test suit, you still can't prove that reusing components won't break anything. Or more general: a test suite can prove the existence of a bug, but it can't prove the non-existence of a bug.

Post some code here that does "$test = `cat file`" or "system 'cp file1 file2'" and watch the people howl that it's not a "solution in Perl".
And whether people howl in the Monastery over a piece of code, is not an indication by itself of good or bad code.
While that is true, good or bad code wasn't the point you brought up. What you brought up was:
Whether this looks nice or not, is basically immaterial.
I just pointed out that for many people it is important how code looks.

Abigail

In reply to Re: Re-use: moderation please. by Abigail-II
in thread Re-use: moderation please. by BrowserUk

Title:
Use:  <p> text here (a paragraph) </p>
and:  <code> code here </code>
to format your post, it's "PerlMonks-approved HTML":


  • Posts are HTML formatted. Put <p> </p> tags around your paragraphs. Put <code> </code> tags around your code and data!
  • Titles consisting of a single word are discouraged, and in most cases are disallowed outright.
  • Read Where should I post X? if you're not absolutely sure you're posting in the right place.
  • Please read these before you post! —
  • Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags:
    a, abbr, b, big, blockquote, br, caption, center, col, colgroup, dd, del, details, div, dl, dt, em, font, h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, hr, i, ins, li, ol, p, pre, readmore, small, span, spoiler, strike, strong, sub, summary, sup, table, tbody, td, tfoot, th, thead, tr, tt, u, ul, wbr
  • You may need to use entities for some characters, as follows. (Exception: Within code tags, you can put the characters literally.)
            For:     Use:
    & &amp;
    < &lt;
    > &gt;
    [ &#91;
    ] &#93;
  • Link using PerlMonks shortcuts! What shortcuts can I use for linking?
  • See Writeup Formatting Tips and other pages linked from there for more info.