in reply to Your main event may be another's side-show.

It is interesting to me how our points-of-view differ ... so, in the spirit of the old TV show, “Point : Counterpoint”, let me offer my counter-points.   My alternate points of view.   (Not “my dissent.”)

First of all, my “reason for responding,” to any post and every post that I respond to, is simply to help that person if I can.   I do this because I know that I can come to the same place, “seek,” and find.   There is no other reason for me.   I take.   I give.

Second, I find packages like the ones that you mention to be helpful, either as reference or as a source of an actual solution.   While I do not always use these materials exactly as they are written, they do, nevertheless, represent “a complete thought.”   And, yes, I do find myself using these modules quite a bit because I simply do not have the time to do original coding on my own.   I can usually find in the source-code the evidence of obstacles that have been smashed-into and learned from.   Also, I look at some modules and wonder, “why was the module designed this way?”   You know that you are peeking over the shoulders of a complete work that was built by a professional programmer colleague, and refined to the point to where said programmer was willing to publish it as a reusable resource.   Such code is full of surprises, most of them useful.

Still, it really does pay to “use the Source, Luke!”   CPAN modules are ... well ... what they are.   You can treat them as “black boxes” to a limited extent.   But sometimes you have to do the exact opposite:   peel all the covers off, and study the thing.

A very interesting and thought-provoking thread. . .   I look forward to the other comments.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Your main event may be another's side-show.
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Oct 17, 2010 at 22:13 UTC
    Second, I find packages like the ones that you mention to be helpful, either as reference or as a source of an actual solution. While I do not always use these materials exactly as they are written, they do, nevertheless, represent “a complete thought.” And, yes, I do find myself using these modules quite a bit because I simply do not have the time to do original coding on my own.

    I'm far from adverse to using CPAN modules. Much less looking inside them to see what makes them tick.

    One or more of them, Data::Dump, List::Util, Time::HiRes *, are used in almost every script write. And a bunch more LWP, IO::Socket, IO::Select, GD, etc. I use as if they were an integral part of Perl. I use them so frequently that I never have to look up their basic functionality; nor often even their more involved details.

    And I've never even considered trying to re-create their functionality using the basic Perl's built-ins (like socket,accept,bind & listen) they use under the covers. They're, (their apis), just so well thought through and simple to use, that messing around with the low-level stuff they encapsulate rarely enters my head. And when it does, it is only to understand how to use them better, or on very rare occasion, to patch my way past a limitation.

    But the thing to note is that none of those modules is a framework. Their designs are such, and their apis so well thought through and developed, that they can be used in conjunction with threads or fork or select. They assist the application writer by encapsulating the messy low-level details in such a way as to allow him to be ignorant of them. But they do it without imposing a particular architecture; or requiring that they be masters of all they survey.

    The distinction is as between: doing a self-build where you hire an architect to encapsulate your ideas, and individual contractors to enact them; and buying a house from a developer, who offers you choices of, the number of bedrooms, and the color of the bathroom suites & the tiles on the kitchen floor.

    Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
    "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
    In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
[reply]

      I now see that I mis-understood the thrust of your original post.   Thank you for the clarification.

In Section Meditations