Wow, your elegant argument has convinced me that all my issues are
irrelevant and I will switch immediately.
Ben
On Oct 20, 2007, at 2:33 PM, Ron Savage wrote:
Ben Hitz wrote:
Hi Ben
I am not a fan of inside-out objects in perl, because I have much
old code which uses old-style hash objects.
It's confusing to have two types (although technically usable).
Your use of 'because' there is meaningless.
Before someone adopts inside-out objects, /all/ their code is 'old-
style etc'. And almost every line of code in CPAN is 'old-style'.
So what :-)?
This preponderance of old-style code, in itself, tells you nothing
about whether or not inside-out objects are better, worse, or the
same old same old. It simply means a vast amount of code was
written before inside-out objects hit the big time.
In other words, we use what we have learned. For those of us who
are just about to try inside-out objects, without necessarily
adopting them, it's a choice between conservatively sticking with
old-style code or expending the effort to investigate something
(inside-out objects in this case) which, if adopted, will actually
require retraining the old brain a bit.
This situation is similar to a job I've just applied for, where
Perl Best Practices (PBP) is the mandatory way of writing code. I
certainly won't have to make as many changes to adopt PDP as a lot
of other programmers would (if I get the job), but I recognize
there will be many little places where I'll have to stop and think
about what I'm writing. And that's no bad thing, just an effort.
And there's no escape from the fact that Perl, and software
technology in general,
are not static entities. They evolve, become more complex (perhaps
unfortunately), and we can really only claim to be professional
programmers if we are prepared to make some sort of effort to keep
up-to-date (as distinct from mindlessly adopting the latest
offerings from the loudest fanatics).
We have been converting our hand-rolled Database API to
DBIx::Class, which uses Class::Accessor (actually an extension
written for DBIC) called Class:Accessor::Grouped and Class:C3 to
dispatch.
The fact that I prefer Rose to DBIC doesn't mean you should switch
to copy me. Just investigate, cogitate, and choose the one you most
like the look of. Before switching from Class::DBI to Rose, I read
hundreds of msgs on the DBIC mailing list, but couldn't bring
myself to feel enthusiastic about it.
Adopting Rose required retraining myself, but after a very short
while it just went Click! in a powerful way. So I asked myself -
why is that? It's a feeling so it's difficult to articulate - but
the word I now use is familiarity. Writing DBI code in Rose feels
just like writing anything else in Perl. It (Rose) is a natural fit
to Perl. But I'll say it again - just because it suits some of us
doesn't mean it has to suit all of us.
--
Ron Savage
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://savage.net.au/index.html
##### CGI::Application community mailing list ################
## ##
## To unsubscribe, or change your message delivery options, ##
## visit: http://www.erlbaum.net/mailman/listinfo/cgiapp ##
## ##
## Web archive: http://www.erlbaum.net/pipermail/cgiapp/ ##
## Wiki: http://cgiapp.erlbaum.net/ ##
## ##
################################################################
--
Ben Hitz
Senior Scientific Programmer ** Saccharomyces Genome Database ** GO
Consortium
Stanford University ** [EMAIL PROTECTED]
##### CGI::Application community mailing list ################
## ##
## To unsubscribe, or change your message delivery options, ##
## visit: http://www.erlbaum.net/mailman/listinfo/cgiapp ##
## ##
## Web archive: http://www.erlbaum.net/pipermail/cgiapp/ ##
## Wiki: http://cgiapp.erlbaum.net/ ##
## ##
################################################################
