[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