[forwarded submission from a non-member address -- rjk]
From: Dave Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 13 Mar 2002 15:04:52 -0500 Subject: Re: [Boston.pm] maintenance of large perl code bases To: James Eshelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Sean Quinlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Wed, 2002-03-13 at 13:48, James Eshelman wrote: > Sean, > I can only contribute to your request (1) below and echo, from many years of > my own experience, Charles' comment about the overriding importance of > modularity. If you think about it most issues on maintainability boil down > to this. I'd add skilled naming and commenting and claim that if you get > only these three you're essentially done--anything else is frosting and not > worth fighting about. If you can only get one, choose modularity! > > In the other direction, if/when you do that Java conversion I'd love to see > a Java <=> Perl comparison of programmer productivity, and runtime > performance. See page 22 for productivity and earlier for runtime. http://wwwipd.ira.uka.de/~prechelt/Biblio/jccpprtTR.ps.gz -- -Dave Turner Stalk Me: 617 441 0668 'Concerns about "rights" and "ownership" of domains are inappropriate. It is appropriate to be concerned about "responsibilities" and "service" to the community.' -- Jon Postel, RFC 1591
