[Moscow.pm] ðÁÔÔÅÒÎÙ
Dmitriy T.
403rus ÎÁ gmail.com
ðÔ éÀÌ 25 06:15:49 PDT 2008
ÔÏÔ ÓÁÍÙÊ ÜÔÏ ÜÔÏÔ:
http://search.cpan.org/~swalters/Object-PerlDesignPatterns-0.03/PerlDesignPatterns.pm
?
Orlovsky Alexander wrote:
> ÷ÏÔ ÞÔÏ ÐÒÏ ÐÁÔÔÅÒÎÙ ÎÁÐÉÓÁÌ ÎÁ cpanratings.perl.org Scott Walters.
> éÎÔÅÒÅÓÎÏ, ÜÔÏ "ÔÏÔ ÓÁÍÙÊ"? :)
>
> Perl doesn't need design patterns. Design patterns are just
> repeated sequences of code to work around failings of OO
> systems. Most perl programmers don't even use OO to avoid
> these problems. OO is over rated. If this is about design
> patterns, it must be about OO, and OO is overkill. Packages
> are all that is needed to write modular code. Java programmers
> only use objects because the class libraries make them and there
> are no other shortcuts in the language anyway. Patterns are
> dumb. And design is completely pointless too. Perl programs
> never get large enough that design is a problem. People
> never put together teams of Perl programmers and one person
> doesn't need to design their own code. Programs grow
> organically. They go from small to big, cute to gnarly,
> simple to twisted. When they get big and old, they die. No one
> works on old code and no one uses old code. If programs expired
> like eggs, people wouldn't even talk about nonesense like
> software design and computer science. Those Java people must
> take us Perl programers as real dunderheads to think we'd
> bite on something as lame as this. -scott
>
>
> Scott Walters - 2003-10-06 19:31:44
> --
> Moscow.pm mailing list
> moscow-pm ÎÁ pm.org | http://moscow.pm.org
>
ðÏÄÒÏÂÎÁÑ ÉÎÆÏÒÍÁÃÉÑ Ï ÓÐÉÓËÅ ÒÁÓÓÙÌËÉ Moscow-pm