Re: Objects and Exceptions sans CPAN

Since I want this thing to have as-readable-as-possible code I'm trying to go OOP all the way.

That doesn't follow, IMO. It's easier to make things unreadable by using OO than not. OO, specially so-called 'readable' OO, quickly goes to "you're in maze of twisty little packages, all alike".

Comment on Re: Objects and Exceptions sans CPAN

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Objects and Exceptions sans CPAN by Da_Lu (Acolyte) on Jan 13, 2010 at 11:49 UTC
If I'd wanted perfectly readable code, I'd have chosen COBOL. :P But seriously, I'm going with OOP as I'm trying to encapsulate logical units as small as possible, and with defined interfaces between them. I've had design help from one of our senior programmers, and exception handling was one of the last "problems" we've had. To be honest, based on the current design if it weren't for `bless` and `new` you'd see a few regular packages.	[reply] [d/l] [select]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^2: Objects and Exceptions sans CPAN
by Da_Lu (Acolyte) on Jan 13, 2010 at 11:49 UTC

If I'd wanted perfectly readable code, I'd have chosen COBOL. :P

But seriously, I'm going with OOP as I'm trying to encapsulate logical units as small as possible, and with defined interfaces between them. I've had design help from one of our senior programmers, and exception handling was one of the last "problems" we've had. To be honest, based on the current design if it weren't for bless and new you'd see a few regular packages.

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]