Still, it does not convince me.
If I should follow your reasoning, I should forego the use of modules such as DBI, CGI, List::Utils, ... for the simple reason that one looses control by using other people's modules, especially when they are fairly complex and might hide dragons behind their nice APIs, and because it is faster and more memory efficient to program directly to the bare metal.
I daresay, I'm amazed you still use Perl at all! Who knows what bugs may lurk in the language and its implementation, or for the same token, in the OS or in the processor's microcode? I think you will still remember the infamous Pentium processor floating point bug. No, no, A sliderule and paper and pencil are the only things you can really trust (if you do all the work yourself of course).
Sure your approach uses less memory, but I don't get an out-of-memory error and yes it is faster, but I don't mind if it runs 20 seconds or even two minutes. I find the Moose aproach easy and clear. Its declarative-like syntax is self-documenting. Yes, in six month's time I will have to look-up the docs again to see what the accessors are called, but do you really think I will remember in six month's time that the line-date is the first level of the hash and the station data is the second level of the hash and the Easting, ... is in an array rather than a hash, which are indexed by constants?
I think we just have to agree to disagree.
CountZero
A program should be light and agile, its subroutines connected like a string of pearls. The spirit and intent of the program should be retained throughout. There should be neither too little or too much, neither needless loops nor useless variables, neither lack of structure nor overwhelming rigidity." - The Tao of Programming, 4.1 - Geoffrey James
In reply to Re^7: Data Structures
by CountZero
in thread Data Structures
by YYCseismic
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |