Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
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.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • The attitude where you "have to know how it works under the hood" or else you don't use it, is dumb, and leads to moronic efforts to reinvent wheels.

    Joel's buddy Jeff demonstrated this well when he decided to write his own HTML Sanitizer: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/001167.html [codinghorror.com]

    Engage cross-site scripting!

    And why are you whining about confess dumps? I presume because you are not used to seeing them, but the stacks are probably just as deep on most other modules you use, and you are oblivi

    • I hate repeating myself. It never accomplishes anything. But I'm a fool. So:

      I *said* that all abstractions leak. Whether or not you agree with that, I did introduce that as a premise in what I wrote, I also make it clear why I need to know what's going on under the hood -- not because I care, but because it *breaks*. Or leaks, to honor the analogy. But if you didn't catch that the first time, I doubt you will this time.

      I am perfectly used to seeing confess dumps. They're usually 20 or 30 lines long for production code, not 100. But other people have pointed out modules that sanitize those. And I also thought (I don't remember) that I made it clear that the crash dump didn't confuse my simple brain but instead was a simple example of this leaky abstraction thing that I keep mentioning. By the way, if you reply to this, I'm not reading it, so now would be a good time to challenge my manhood and insult my mother.

      No one is saying that code re-use is bad. But it's not black and white either. If code reuse is good, then why not suck in all of Bundle::CPAN? Code in modules is going to have less errors than re-invented wheels, but it's not error free either. Just like each line of code needs to move you a step closer to solving a problem, each module also needs to. I was trying to install HTTP::Proxy the other day and that got wedged with a dep five levels deep that was doing something completely unrelated to the original module's premise -- some helper programmer hanging off of an email module hanging off a MIME module had another little helper program that was barfing. Rather than being mindless about trying to re-use every bit of code out there, I'm calling for developers to be intelligent about it, even re-evaluating whether or not the modules they release use Moose.

      Thank you for taking the time to comment in my blog even though you couldn't be bothered to actually read what I posted in it. Now go away and never post here again.

      -scott

      • Nice retort; proper old school, especially the bit about your manhood :-)

        Thanks for clarifying your point of view - I'd have preferred you to say some of this in a rather longer (and less vague) original blog post, which might have saved me the time in the first place of wanting to jump on your head. Perhaps take that as a tip for any future Moose musings here.

        At the moment I'm toying with Moosifying one of my own modules. It would make the guts so much more sane and manageable, but offer no real benefi