Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Pathologically Eclectic Rubbish Lister
 
PerlMonks  

Re: Can we have C-style Modularity?

by thezip (Vicar)
on Jan 20, 2011 at 03:57 UTC ( #883234=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Can we have C-style Modularity?

I often write modules just so that I don't have to look at subroutine code anymore. By giving my module subroutines descriptive names and reasonable interfaces, I can abstract the subs to do very useful things without having to worry about the details therein.

I'm a big fan of "less code to look at" while solving the larger problem, so my knee-jerk reaction is to ship it off somewhere else.


What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof. - Christopher Hitchens


Comment on Re: Can we have C-style Modularity?
Re^2: Can we have C-style Modularity?
by sumeetgrover (Scribe) on Jan 20, 2011 at 14:31 UTC

    Thank you!

    I completely agree! In software design, such a programming style (as you might be aware) is called ADT (Abstract Data Types) and I am a big fan of it!

    Cheers guys.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://883234]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others lurking in the Monastery: (12)
As of 2014-07-23 10:55 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    My favorite superfluous repetitious redundant duplicative phrase is:









    Results (140 votes), past polls