Any important code resides under one App::MyApp namespace, and not split across App::MyApp and myapp.pl
It was mostly humour, but ... you still need myapp.pl in order to invoke your application.
Which means you added an extra file (your App::MyAPP.pm) -- and an extra level of callback trace to every error message, etc. etc. -- and made the (still) required file almost empty and what did you gain?
IMO nothing. You added the need to chase off and track through where this module file lives -- not always obvious with lib, site/lib, site/vendor/lib, use lib et al. -- just in order to see what it does; what its dependencies are ...
That almost empty file, the .pl, is still used. What is the point in adding an extra file in order to make this one almost empty? There is no logical justification for it.
With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
Well, if the application is small enought to fit to one file, your arguments are valid
If application already consists of several files (i.e. it's not a small 500 lines script), the benefits I described outweigh that fact
that you need another file
You added the need to chase off and track through where this module file lives -- not always obvious with lib, site/lib, site/vendor/lib
It must be irrelevant if we talk about CPAN deploy. More that that, if user has a mess with @INC dir, it's actually better
to have all application files in one @INC dir, than having half of application is @INC and half in bin (/usr/bin, /usr/local/bin/ ~/bin /opt/myapp/bin etc) (if we assume that there is a mess with @INC, we can assume there is a mess with $PATH too)
Having site/lib, site/vendor/lib is actually a feature, so people can deploy with CPAN or with OS package manager at same time, it's an advantage
extra file
Minor issue, if you already have several files
an extra level of callback trace
There won't be extra level of stacktrace if you just split code to files.
Extra level added if you split it to subroutines
So it's valid argument if we talk about having some startup code in one "main" subroutine vs having some code unwrapped to subroutine in main package
callback trace to every error message
Imho stacktrace should appear if unexpected/programmer error happened (assertion, like "confess"), otherwise there
should be clear error message and no stacktrace is needed. But it's probably matter of script quality
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
the benefits I described
You had not -- and still have not -- described any "benefits".
At best you've outlined your personal preference for adding an extra layer to your applications for no good reason.
But they are your applications, so do as you will. (Just don't try to feign some CompSci justifiction for it. )
With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |