Re^2: Dynamically Changing Your Namespace

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Dynamically Changing Your Namespace by Moron (Curate) on Mar 30, 2007 at 14:23 UTC
Is there something virtuous about using a lot of code to do something? -M Free your mind	[reply]
Re^4: Dynamically Changing Your Namespace by educated_foo (Vicar) on Mar 30, 2007 at 14:49 UTC
Not sure where you got that impression. My point was that those two modules were doing things that can be accomplished in plain Perl with a single, simple statement. Therefore using a module for these tasks actually adds complexity to your code.	[reply]
Re^5: Dynamically Changing Your Namespace by grinder (Bishop) on Mar 30, 2007 at 15:39 UTC
using a module for these tasks actually adds* complexity to your code* Well, yes and no. It adds complexity and also adds insurance against bitrot. The price paid turns out to be a win if there was an unforseen set of circumstances that could cause the technique to fail, e.g. funky stuff involving lazy loading or what have you. With a module, the extra level of indirection gives you a chance to come up with a fix, safe in the knowledge that anything that uses it will inherit the improvement. Doing this in bare code means you have to go and hunt it down in the codebase if you ever need to fix it. • another intruder with the mooring in the heart of the Perl	[reply]
Re^5: Dynamically Changing Your Namespace by Moron (Curate) on Apr 02, 2007 at 14:46 UTC
IMO: A subroutine represents a (update: re-usable) functional block and avoids duplication of its implementation. Size doesn't matter in that sense - i.e. other than it being an indication of efficient coding of the subroutine if it is optimally small (Update: I don't mean obsessively small as in golf - just not ten lines where one will do!) -M Free your mind	[reply]