use Perl

• cultural solutions (Score:1)

  by rjbs (4671)

  Inside-out objects are really neat and cool. That's why I don't think I will use them.
  
  There are definite benefits, like improved encapsulation, but I don't need a shotgun -- especially one that has lots of overhead costs. In Perl, avoiding tight coupling can be reduced to a cultural problem, in my experience.
  
  Sometimes, I use a pattern like this:
  
      $object->{__PACKAGE__}{attr} = $value;
  
  Now the object's guts are well divided into areas of authority. If you, Subclass::Happy start screwing aro

  --
  rjbs
  • Re: (Score:1)

    by Abigail (26)

    That solves only one of the two problems Inside-Out Objects try to solve.

    The other is turning (possibly hard to find) runtime errors into compile time errors.

    Preferring $hash -> {attr} (or $hash -> {__PACKAGE__} {attr}) over $attr {refaddr $ref} is, IMO, as sane as preferring package variable and 'no strict' over lexical variables and 'use strict'.

    Inside-Out Objects has never been about providing encapsulation with a shotgun. It simply favours perl5-style variables ('strict', 'lexical') over per
    • Re:cultural solutions (Score:1)

      by rjbs (4671) on 2007.11.27 8:41 (#59188) Homepage Journal

      Yes, that's a very good point, and what I suggested doesn't address it at all. I wonder whether a bit of sugar around restricted hashes could provide something 80% as useful without many of the drawbacks of inside-out objects... but I haven't given it much thought, let alone experimentation.

      --
      rjbs

      Reply to This

      Parent