hey! cool! finally a discussion about C::A with a lot of good arguments (mod_perl reusability, etc.)
but a lot of monks pointed out that the if/elsif constructs (that i use a lot) are inherently flawed, and i'd just like to take advantage and ask why?
assuming one doesn't use any advanced features of C::A, does one actually gain a lot by using it? is calling a sub noticably faster than letting the perl interpreter run through all the conditions? why exactly does C::A increase code mainainabilty?
to explain my situation: i bundle up anything related in seperate .pl files, which all do
global start-up scripts (for session-handling, db-connections, etc.), and all 'interesting' and reusable subs are inside various modules that get use
d where appropiate.
i'm just wondering whether i'd gain a lot by switching to C::A (which, AFAIK, wouldn't be tooooo hard), because of the tons of positive comments about it...
Posts are HTML formatted. Put <p> </p> tags around your paragraphs. Put <code> </code> tags around your code and data!
Read Where should I post X? if you're not absolutely sure you're posting in the right place.
Please read these before you post! —
Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags:
You may need to use entities for some characters, as follows. (Exception: Within code tags, you can put the characters literally.)
- a, abbr, b, big, blockquote, br, caption, center, col, colgroup, dd, del, div, dl, dt, em, font, h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, hr, i, ins, li, ol, p, pre, readmore, small, span, spoiler, strike, strong, sub, sup, table, tbody, td, tfoot, th, thead, tr, tt, u, ul, wbr
Link using PerlMonks shortcuts! What shortcuts can I use for linking?
See Writeup Formatting Tips and other pages linked from there for more info.
| & || & |
| < || < |
| > || > |
| [ || [ |
| ] || ] ||