Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
There's more than one way to do things
 
PerlMonks  

Re: Calling a subroutine - which is most efficient?

by dragonchild (Archbishop)
on Oct 26, 2008 at 00:46 UTC ( #719591=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Calling a subroutine - which is most efficient?

Interpreter efficiency is identical in both cases. What's more interesting to me is programmer efficiency, specifically maintainability. And, there's no easy answer. In a Perl context, I guess it's whether or not your program is more OO (where you would pass the blessed hashref) or more functional (where you would pass the value in order to be less coupled). It's an interesting thought exercise.

My criteria for good software:
  1. Does it work?
  2. Can someone else come in, make a change, and be reasonably certain no bugs were introduced?
  • Comment on Re: Calling a subroutine - which is most efficient?

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://719591]
help
Chatterbox?
[Corion]: Of course, from a certain angle, it doesn't matter if your code line continues after <<FOO, but it would be nice if Filter::Simple / Text::Balanced didn't mangle that...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others meditating upon the Monastery: (6)
As of 2017-01-22 10:24 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?
    Do you watch meteor showers?




    Results (187 votes). Check out past polls.