Slash Boxes
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • Though that wasn't the main point of the post, which was that if you just go about converting base classes to roles where you have recurrence of god objects, you will get god objects implemented with roles ;-)

    As you showed, in real life lots of stuff that happens to be working probably shouldn't be. Many a time i find myself reading through old code and saying to myself something along the lines of "OH F*ET!$%*Y HOW THE H*U$!(&Y DID THIS PIECE OF &$!(&!Y% EVER WORK TO BEGIN WITH?!!". Something l

    • I certainly hope, though, that it didn't sound like I was being too critical of your reasoning. You had a great post.

      I'm concerned about the God Object comments, though. I think it's easy to create God Objects with roles and to fundamentally misunderstand OO, but God Objects are less of a concern (I think) with roles. For example, with Test::Builder generating TAP and providing the ability to share the TAP generator, you suggest that these are behaviors which can be separated by delegating to a TAP gener

      • And to illustrate the point, consider the opposite of the god object: ravioli code []. It can be equally unmaintainable.

        • Attempting a definition of a "God Object"

          Any object that implements a model for more than one concept simultaneously.

          To take your "car" analogy for a second, you don't drive just a car. The interface presented to you delegates the actions you make to other components you don't have to think about yes, but at no point are the Engine Block, Steering Assembly, Chassis or Wheels wholly consumed by the "car". There are even those of us who prefer cars that make you *more* aware of this (manual transmission for example) rather than less.

          Roles aren't really re-usable components, they're more like an alloying material. Adding carbon to iron provides you with a new stronger material steel. Steel is a new basic block to build components out of. Carbon and iron are useful in other alloys (and individually ... the analogy and Perl5/Moose's object model break down here), and can be reused ... but they're not the same as steel.

          So yes Roles make building God objects easier. I can't see that they fundamentally affect the problems with God objects. Those problems stem from the fact that your single Class/Object is trying to model more than one concept. I think nothingmuch's point is delegation provides a cleaner way to compose two different concepts than either Roles or Inheritance.

          Finally using this definition the problem with Ravioli Code is that the concepts are modeled across more than one class, making it difficult to understand how the model is composed at all.