Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

290Re: [extremeperl] Better Development Tools for Perl

Expand Messages
  • Perrin Harkins
    Jun 6, 2005
      Rob Kinyon wrote:
      > North Korea. :-)

      Oops, I shouldn't write things like this when I'm half asleep. With
      South Korea, Starcraft would be the thing you'd have a hard time getting
      them to hand over.

      > I'm one of those people who believes in both coder-defined imported
      > mixins -and- Code Complete.

      I have a particular grudge against mixins. Having a name for them makes
      them sound so reasonable, but how long will it be before two people
      release mixins that want to use the same method name? They effectively
      flatten the namespace.

      > Good Perl
      > code can be all of those things and be very dynamic.

      At some point, the complexity gets out of control. Using lots of magic
      tends to lead to code that requires the programmer to keep a whole set
      of invisible extras in their head while working on a few lines of code.

      > All this talk of automatically refactoring and auto-generation of
      > tests ... makes me think the code is just too complicated. Why aren't
      > the common bits abstracted out? You recommend Catalyst, but not CDBI?

      I don't personally feel the need for automated refactoring. I mentioned
      Catalyst as an example of something that generates tests, not as an
      endorsement. (I'll be talking about Catalyst and friends at YAPC, so
      it's on my mind.) I do recommend CDBI, and I contribute patches to it,
      which is why I know what the internals look like.

      - Perrin
    • Show all 107 messages in this topic