SPUG: Hashes and subroutines

[Bill Warner]

We can agree java takes all the fun out of programming. And, yes, Linus
hates c++, too http://lwn.net/Articles/249460/.

But ask yourself, how is the dispatch table as presented in this thread any
different that perl's symbol table? Usually passing around code references
like this means that you're trying to create your own symbol table and yet
another object model. If that's the case, then you haven't avoided OO
programming at all, you've only attempted to reinvent it all by yourself.

With respect to when OO is a good way to go, I think Damian Conway's 11
questions are a decent guide:

 http://perltraining.com.au/tips/2005-01-25.html

I like OO and use it often. It makes it much easier for me to reuse my code,
and much easier to change my mind.

Thanks,

 b

On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Christopher Howard <choward at indicium.us>wrote:

>
> I'm not entirely against object oriented programming, but I generally try
> to avoid it until I see a very clear need for it. E.g., a need for multiple
> instantiations of an object, or a need for inheritance in a class hierarchy.
>
> I'm inclined to see a big difference between maintaining separate
> namespaces, and real object oriented programming.
>
> Anyone else feel the same way?
>
>
> --
> Christopher Howard
> http://indicium.us
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.pm.org/pipermail/spug-list/attachments/20090107/db768103/attachment.html>