in reply to Re: Re: Ingy's "Swiss Army Light Sabre" - or, "how do you design your APIs?"
in thread Ingy's "Swiss Army Light Sabre" - or, "how do you design your APIs?"

but I think this reason for discounting it might be bogus.
I don't think its bogus. It's a personal value judgement. If jonadb doesn't feel IO::All is an improvement, why would he switch (certainly would be a waste of his time)? As for your analogy, i'm sure to that C programmer Perl was "a needless exercise in wheel-reinventing" which is why that C programmer never learned perl. Doesn't stop us from enjoying :)(btw, I didn't think much of IO::All except that it's got bugs {see rt})

MJD says "you can't just make shit up and expect the computer to know what you mean, retardo!"
I run a Win32 PPM repository for perl 5.6.x and 5.8.x -- I take requests (README).
** The third rule of perl club is a statement of fact: pod is sexy.

  • Comment on Re: Re: Re: Ingy's "Swiss Army Light Sabre" - or, "how do you design your APIs?"

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ingy's "Swiss Army Light Sabre" - or, "how do you design your APIs?"
by revdiablo (Prior) on Mar 24, 2004 at 19:16 UTC
    It's a personal value judgement.

    Indeed, and as such is not a persuasive argument. Re-reading jonadab's post, it does seem he was simply relaying his own opinion. I suppose I could have ignored that paragraph in my reply altogether. Note that I wasn't really trying to persuade anyone to use IO::All, just pointing out a "weak argument," even though it now appears it wasn't an argument at all. I guess it's safe to completely ignore that part of my post as well. :-)

[reply]

In Section Meditations