The bottom line for me is that one should have the foresight to know how to wrap such calls so that, when the time comes, they can opt to optimize the performance of said call without having to administer shotgun maintenance. That is -- how efficient will it be for you to make the change in the code?
Consider this -- you can use File::Slurp in the early stages of your development and get on with "real work." If you use modules with the foresight that their internals will change, you should not have a hard time replacing the internal with a more efficient algorithm as long as you don't couple method calls too tightly.
jeffa
L-LL-L--L-LL-L--L-LL-L-- -R--R-RR-R--R-RR-R--R-RR B--B--B--B--B--B--B--B-- H---H---H---H---H---H--- (the triplet paradiddle with high-hat)
In reply to Re: File::Slurp Not As Efficient As OPEN / CLOSE
by jeffa
in thread File::Slurp Not As Efficient As OPEN / CLOSE
by ~~David~~
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |