Re^3: Seeking inside-out object implementations

As to the gazillion modules, what's the alternative? Every programmer going out and making their own gazillion mistakes writing everything by hand?

That's like saying everyone should take a cab into work, instead of driving yourself and create car accidents.

We've already established that all the modules have their flaws (otherwise, we'd quickly agree what module to use). And frankly, inside-out objects are simple. Hardly more complicated than hash based objects.

Give programmers a bit of credit.

Perl --((8:>*

Comment on Re^3: Seeking inside-out object implementations

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Seeking inside-out object implementations by xdg (Monsignor) on Dec 07, 2005 at 02:05 UTC
That's like saying everyone should take a cab into work, instead of driving yourself That's an interesting way of selectively quoting what I said to shift the meaning. Perhaps you should have included my next sentence: At least CPAN modules, flawed as they might be, have the potential to benefit from some degree of peer review... Unlike cab drivers. -xdg Code written by xdg and posted on PerlMonks is public domain. It is provided as is with no warranties, express or implied, of any kind. Posted code may not have been tested. Use of posted code is at your own risk.	[reply]
Re^4: Seeking inside-out object implementations by adrianh (Chancellor) on Dec 07, 2005 at 12:30 UTC
And frankly, inside-out objects are simple. Hardly more complicated than hash based objects. If it wasn't for the DESTROY block issue I'd agree. However I've found it surprisingly easy to foul this up leading to memory leak issues that cause me more problems than the occasional development issue with encapsulation and typos.	[reply]


Don't ask to ask, just ask
	PerlMonks