Using the example of a system of many non-trivial CGI's, implementing something such as CGI.pm for reuse across all of them is going to be more maintainable and less work than rolling your own unique, simplest-method parser for each.How so? You still haven't shown how CGI.pm is easier maintained than code I wrote myself.
Or is your position that code written by someone else and put on CPAN (or made part of the Perl distribution) is immune to requirement changes, but any code I write myself is subject to changes in requirements? Because that's seems to be the assumption behind the "all code must be maintainable" - that all requirements change, and that code isn't static.
Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for a piece of non-trivial code, written in a simple way, that would have taken less time to write if it was written in a "maintainable way".
In reply to Re^11: Legacy Code: "Dominoes = Bad"
by JavaFan
in thread Legacy Code: "Dominoes = Bad"
by locked_user sundialsvc4
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |