|No such thing as a small change|
I found your example of the constructor quite intriguing. Let me re-write that as a concrete example of generating a geometric shape:
Do you know which parameter does what? No, of course not, you'd have to memorize the order of parameters, which nobody can or want for larger libraries.
Consider this in contrast:
Although the second version is bloated, it's much more readable. So in terms of maintainability, it wins. IMHO. I don't like it, but it's easier to understand, and at least in terms of readability it also scales to more arguments.
But wait - can't we do better? The repeated part $circle->set_ is ugly, and repetition is the enemy of good programming. Consider this instead:
That's not shorter than the second example, but much less bloated, because of less repetition. But it's still as readable, and it scales well (ie even if you have eight or ten arguments to new() you can see what it does).
(If you are a Perl 6 fan boy like me, you'll be pleased to learn that Perl 6 provides such constructors with named parameters by default. Of course they can be overwritten).