Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Don't ask to ask, just ask
 
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?
Replies are listed 'Best First'.
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: (7)
As of 2015-07-30 10:36 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    The top three priorities of my open tasks are (in descending order of likelihood to be worked on) ...









    Results (271 votes), past polls