|laziness, impatience, and hubris|
tilly, while I agree in theory with what you are saying, I have a problem with this.
Let's say I have a program that reads an initialization file, opens a data file, does some processing, summarizing, error reporting, etc. A simple outline of the program might run like this (sorry for the formatting):
If that's the case, it's relatively simple to document and follow the process flow. But, even for a simple process like this, here's what I usually find in production programs:
It's a fairly linear run-through from top to bottom. There is little if any attempt to modularize the code. When that gets significantly larger, documentation becomes critical. I'm not disagreeing with how one should write the programs (small functions are the way to go), but many, if not most of the programmers that I have met simply don't appreciate this.
As a side note, I find that even those who do appreciate this will often do the straight run-through rather than the modularization. I sometimes have that in my code (usually a sign that I've been given rotten specs).
As a second side note, I just hacked together the example. There's no serious attempt to make the names more sensible or to really break it down properly. I'll call it pseudo-Warnier-Orr :-)
Join the Perlmonks Setiathome Group or just click on the the link and check out our stats.
In reply to (Ovid - Yes, but) Re(?): What you want and perl advocacy gone way wrong