Reverse engineering

matth has asked for the wisdom of the Perl Monks concerning the following question:

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Reverse engineering by gjb (Vicar) on Jan 31, 2003 at 14:33 UTC
It'd be very hard for Perl since it is weakly typed. Suppose an object is implemented using a hash, how can you determine the type of the attributes? Similarly, what are the arguments to a method? Another point: methods can parse their arguments using `shift(@_)` or by filling a local hash, again it's almost impossible to figure out what's going on automatically. Just my 2 cents, -gjb-	[reply] [d/l]
Re: Reverse engineering by Heidegger (Hermit) on Jan 31, 2003 at 14:31 UTC
This question has been asked before. Check the Q&A answer about UML diagrams here. Perl isn't as advanced on OO modelling as C++/Java are, which have dozens of tools. Once I wanted to try the AutoDia tool under Windows and couldn't install it. If I'll have to draw class diagrams for my Perl code, I think I'll just take a regular UML modelling tool and draw diagrams by hand.	[reply]
Re: Re: Reverse engineering by Hofmator (Curate) on Jan 31, 2003 at 16:36 UTC
Could you provide your links to other stuff on Perl Monks not with `<a href="http://www.perlmonks.org/index.pl?node_id=167834">this</a>` but with `[id://167834\|that]` or even just `[167834\|that]`. Your way doesn't work for monks that use www.perlmonks.com, as you loose your logged-in status when switching from .com to .org. -- Hofmator	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re: Reverse engineering by Heidegger (Hermit) on Jan 31, 2003 at 14:34 UTC
Strongly typed languages like C++ and Java went very far with OO diagram modelling. The next hype with OO is refactoring and there are already automatic tools for these languages. It's a pity, but Perl is still behind with refactoring too.	[reply]


Come for the quick hacks, stay for the epiphanies.
	PerlMonks