in reply to Modules or lack thereof

I agree with the politeness recommendation. Heartily so.

I disagree with the general idea behind the request, however. If someone asked "How do I use a variable as a variable name?", I would not shy away from saying "You really don't want to do that." Likewise for questions like "How do I parse multipart/form-data without using a module?" or "How do I access my database without using a module?"

Some solutions are worth the trouble of trying a slightly different approach. Likewise, some problems are difficult enough to do the right way, without having to code with your hands tied behind your back (metaphorically speaking).

You're absolutely correct that modules that need a C compiler are much more difficult to install than Pure Perl modules, and that's a definite drawback.

But it doesn't change my opinion that in certain domains, certain modules are the reasonable choice. I'll just never beat you with Camel 3 if you don't agree.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Modules or lack thereof
by Blue (Hermit) on Dec 02, 2000 at 03:09 UTC
    Chromatic, I would be a fool if I said that that modules weren't wonderful, and there are modules that will do what you want to do, better, faster and more robustly then any home-grown way.

    I would like to add though that if a monk specifically has a request for no modules, in addition to whatever module advice you may dispense, realize that they may have no control over the limitation, and try to add something on the no module topic also. Even if it's just "BTW, module XYZ does this really well - if you are forced not to use it, you might want to take a gander at the way it does it so you can avoid a couple of common pitfalls".

    My request was not to say no modules, that's foolish. It was just to ask politeness if sometimes the world outside our monestary does not match our ideal.

    Thanks,
    =Blue
    ...you might be eaten by a grue...

[reply]
      6 of one, a half-dozen of the other.

      Sometimes someone will say "No modules" and there is a very good reason for it that they have no control over. But usually there isn't. What I think is particularly bad are the people who say that they don't want to use a module because they think that modules are slow. If getting the program ready quickly and making it robust is less important to you than raw performance, well that is a battle that has been fought from assembler to C to Perl, to Perl with modules - guess which side always wins in the end?

      So someone shows up and says "no modules". Should we not make sure that the person really does understand what they are giving up?

      OTOH we should - even while checking that - be sure not to be impolite because they really might be unable to do anything about the restriction.

[reply]
        Now I know I'm gona get voted down for this but there are times when I just don't want to use modules Yes, Thats right I just choose not use them. Why? well to learn more about how things work. I'm not saying modules are bad but many times I make programs not for the purpose of getting something in particular done but to learn HOW to do things. There is (IMHO) a certain wisdom in knowing more about how to do something than just calling a given module.
        As a rule I won't use a module unless I know at least in general how it's doing what it's doing.
        There is one other issue with modules. If I write a piece of code I know how it works, but using a module means reading many man pages which I find extremely annoying. as such while a module may have more capabilities because I don't know how to use it to it's fullest my own code works better. For example, I can't stand OO, my mind doesn't work that way, so if you point me to an OO module it's not going to do me much good.
        Again, I'm not saying modules are bad, I use them frequently. but they should not be view as an all purpose no matter what use this instead of your own code.
        of course this is all IMHO.
[reply]

In Section Meditations