Thread

Posted on Wed Nov 16 16:54:57 2005 by earl
Request
I like this module and would like to use it. I wish your conventions were more consistent with Class::Std. My experience in using Class::Std conventions doesn't help me here. I have to relearn new conventions. My sponsors would like to see new code, not constant rewrites of legacy code. "Guess what? I'm rewriting what I just rewrote!" Consistent conventions would keep migration costs down. When Netscape had market share, MS tried to make the migration to MIE cost low. Once MIE had market share, then they had the freedom to do their own thing and make migration cost away from MIE high.
Direct Responses: 1327 | Write a response
Posted on Wed Nov 16 22:03:19 2005 by jdhedden in response to 1321
Re: Request
> I wish your conventions were more consistent with Class::Std.

See my reply here.

Direct Responses: 1328 | Write a response
Posted on Wed Nov 16 22:23:08 2005 by earl in response to 1327
Re: Request
My initial post represents my initial gut reaction when I saw some differences (like :FIELD replaced :ATTR). In retrospect, I was a little hasty. I haven't tried to use this Perl module yet, but it looks impressive.
Direct Responses: 1329 | Write a response
Posted on Wed Nov 16 22:38:11 2005 by jdhedden in response to 1328
Re: Request
> My initial post represents my initial gut reaction when
> I saw some differences (like :FIELD replaced :ATTR).

Even with this term I felt the change was justified. If you look at 'perldoc attributes' and 'perldoc fields', you'll see that :FIELD makes more sense than :ATTR. Again, I only changed things when I felt it was better to do so.

> In retrospect, I was a little hasty.

Not at all. It prompted me to write up a comparison of the two modules. Hopefully, it will benefit others, as well.

> I haven't tried to use this Perl module yet, but it looks impressive.

I hope it lives up to your expectations. Thanks.
Write a response