You may be confusing lack of an integrated Test::More with a lack of testing. While automated testing in a CPAN module is awesome, the omission does not mean the author did not test it. In fact, to assume only automated testing is sufficient is an equivalent evil.

I like mix-ins too, but I am not sure they are always better than subclassing (which is what I think your implying here, but I may be wrong).

You are indeed. I am referring to the common falacy of subclassing Car as a Node just because you need a Tree of Cars. I'm not sure having Car as a data element in a Tree is exactly right either, though it is more passable.

As for design patterns not being a FAD, you have to think about when they started to come into acceptance and whether such technology existed "pre design patterns" and if there is software today that is sufficiently more advanced because of them. My answer to these questions are no -- the design patterns are not bad because they are not useful, they are bad because they are BLATANTLY OBVIOUS way of restarting what computer scientists have done for a long time.

Eric and the GoF are guilty of blatant plagarism -- and all those that worship them are doing millions of programmers a great disservice. We do not need to buy a specific book that gives us legos to build software from -- I'm a HUGE advocate of solid design and planning, but I also believe in sensible breakdown of components without a lot of sludge gumming up the gears. And, as you say, "that is my perogative".

Why do I say this? Why do I shun design patterns? Because I love software design. People that really love software design can see what they are doing is just dumbing down Software design into a bunch of duplo blocks. Don't implement a "Facade pattern" because you read it was good in a book. I am not a simple user of someone else's duplo blocks -- this is the rapidly disappearing line between computer science -- this is the commodization of programming -- (or to the same: this is the reason all of our jobs will go to India as soon as we all think alike and exactly the same -- safe programming languages whether COBOL or Java, coupled with politically correct design patterns, signal the doom of the world).

Implement an interface because you know what an interface is and because it is needed. Call an abstraction layer and abstraction layer. No need to claim that only PhD's can write books on good software and only lofty " architects" can design good software ... this just hurts us all. Why make a quasi-religion out of common sense? And why make simple things too complicated? Part of good software design is knowing when to stop. I chose not to build on to these ivory towers (castles?) and keep things simple where I can. Others may chose not to. That's fine. But they should not profess that this is the only way or that the design pattern people are somehow "smarter" than the rest of us because they retranslated common sense into lofty holier-than-thou textbooks that are politically incorrect to disagree with.

In reply to Re^3: How do "you" make a tree in perl by SpanishInquisition
in thread How do "you" make a tree in perl by stvn

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.