and your polluting your namespaces...
This justifiction reminds me of a directive that came around at a company I worked at breifly a few years ago. The directive was that none of the company servers should ever be more than 50% cpu-utilised. Dumb directive you say, but its origins are interesting.
When specing up the hardware for a new purchase of servers, an engineer had specified that they should be capable of running the current workloads for those machines they were due to replace with at least 50% cpu overhead to allow for future growth. Then the company had been taken over, and in the rationalisation a new team was brought in. And the new bean counters read that specification, and their interpretation of it was the directive. Which forced admins to schedule cpu-intensive tasks overnight and at weekends in order to comply, thereby putting unecessary and expensive delays in processes for no good reason at all.
Using a namespace is not "polluting" it. It's just using it. An unused namespace is simply a wasted resource. Pointless in its existance.
Besides which, it is perfectly possible to manage namespaces without resorting to either objects or clever, obscure hacks like autobox.
Emp::listActives( @employees );
No namespace clashes. No weird & fragile syntax. And no 50% to 90% performance penalties.
In reply to Re^5: Benefits of everything is an object? Or new sigils?
by BrowserUk
in thread Benefits of everything is an object? Or new sigils?
by LanX
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |