OK. My use of the word "think" was inaccurate. I know that using Parse::FixedLength makes code more complex than using pack and unpack. Here's how I justify that statement:
pack and unpack are standard Perl built-in functions. This means that they are a) well documented, b) guaranteed to work on any Perl installation and c) very fast (as they are written in C. In addition to that their interface is based on concepts that I understand.
On the other hand, Parse::FixedWidth is not a standard part of Perl. It needs to be downloaded from CPAN and installed on every system where you want to use it. The documentation is patchy and, as pure Perl code, it isn't particularly fast. Furthermore the interface is based on concepts that seem foreign to me. I therefore find that it adds complexity to my script unnecessarily.
Obviously, there are times when adding complexity is a good idea (otherwise, I'd have no use for any CPAN modules) but the complexity needs to allow me to do things easier. I really can't see how Parse::FixedWidth makes my life any easier. What does it give me that I can't achieve with the standard Perl built-ins?
--Perl Training in the UK <http://www.iterative-software.com>
In reply to Re: Davorg,, Tilly and Any other "Experts" --- get with empiricism, not belief
by davorg
in thread does anyone else use Parse::FixedLength;?
by cmilfo
For: | Use: | ||
& | & | ||
< | < | ||
> | > | ||
[ | [ | ||
] | ] |