use Perl

• Oh, come on (Score:1)

  by pdcawley (485) on 2008.02.26 5:52 (#61333) Homepage Journal

  There's definitely aspects of TIMTOWTDI that can create maintenance headaches when you're trying to write something that can cope with those different ways. I lost count of the hoops we had to jump through when we were writing Pixie in order to cope with the myriad ways in which objects could be represented.
  
  Then again, there's no way that Ruby would let me perform the trick of having a proxy object magically become the object it was a proxy for.

  Reply to This

  • Re: (Score:1)

    by chromatic (983)

    I lost count of the hoops we had to jump through when we were writing Pixie in order to cope with the myriad ways in which objects could be represented.

    I agree, and I wouldn't dream of arguing otherwise. However, the conventional wisdom in the Perl world for ages was "Just bless a hash", and now that conventional wisdom is starting to be "Use an inside-out object; encapsulation is good."

    These are changes in community wisdom, not in the language, and that's the point I think Ola was trying to make.

    Y
    • Re: (Score:1)

      by hex (3272)

      conventional wisdom is starting to be "Use an inside-out object; encapsulation is good."

      It is? Since when? Christ. Should I start re-writing all my code?

      It would probably help if I finally learn what inside-out objects actually are. Every time I've tried before, my eyes have glazed over after a few lines and I've gone back to writing plain old objects that just work the way I expect them to.

      (None of this is sarcasm. Seriously.)