Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Do you know where your variables are?
 
PerlMonks  

Re^10: Legacy Code: "Dominoes = Bad"

by armstd (Friar)
on Apr 30, 2011 at 14:55 UTC ( #902207=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^9: Legacy Code: "Dominoes = Bad"
in thread Legacy Code: "Dominoes = Bad"

You would not use CGI.pm for maintainability reasons, but you would because its less work. Sounds like a good example to me...

Using the example of a system of many non-trivial CGI's, implementing something such as CGI.pm for reuse across all of them is going to be more maintainable and less work than rolling your own unique, simplest-method parser for each.

Your mention of 3rd party issues certainly makes the reuse issue more interesting, but copying/renaming CGI.pm into your repo and taking control is still more maintainable and less work than rolling your own a hundred times.

Where I come from anything of interesting scale is done in teams, and teams of teams. So everything is some level of "3rd-party". That's not a justification for each of us to duplicate each others work. Learning someone else's code is work. Past the xth reuse however, and the nth bugfix, the learning work is less than the rolling-your-own-again work.

Taken by itself, a single method, or single CGI might implement the simplest-possible option parser, and that's good. In fact you might have a hundred doing the same simplest thing, and that might also be good. Put them into the same system, and add the requirement that they should all exhibit similar usability behaviors. Then add a new style of behavior they must all adhere to such as your '-' example, and that's where simplest parsing method for each individual CGI becomes the nightmare to maintain system.

--Dave


Comment on Re^10: Legacy Code: "Dominoes = Bad"
Re^11: Legacy Code: "Dominoes = Bad"
by JavaFan (Canon) on Apr 30, 2011 at 21:41 UTC
    Using the example of a system of many non-trivial CGI's, implementing something such as CGI.pm for reuse across all of them is going to be more maintainable and less work than rolling your own unique, simplest-method parser for each.
    How so? You still haven't shown how CGI.pm is easier maintained than code I wrote myself.

    Or is your position that code written by someone else and put on CPAN (or made part of the Perl distribution) is immune to requirement changes, but any code I write myself is subject to changes in requirements? Because that's seems to be the assumption behind the "all code must be maintainable" - that all requirements change, and that code isn't static.

    Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for a piece of non-trivial code, written in a simple way, that would have taken less time to write if it was written in a "maintainable way".

      Code which uses CGI.pm is easier for ME to maintain than code which uses something you wrote!


      - Boldra

        How about if what he wrote used the same interface, but a much lighter, simpler implementation. Eg. CGI::Simple? How does that affect your cost/benefit analysis?


        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.
        Code which uses CGI.pm is easier for ME to maintain than code which uses something you wrote!
        That's quite a bold statement. Considering you don't know my non-existing code, it must be solely based on the quality code CGI.pm provides.

        But still, how come

        use CGI; ... your code ...
        is more maintainable than
        use JavaFan::CGI; ... your code ...
        ?

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://902207]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others imbibing at the Monastery: (3)
As of 2014-10-26 07:52 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    For retirement, I am banking on:










    Results (152 votes), past polls