# from JT Moree
# on Monday 09 April 2007 07:46 am:
>I understand that you are just now tackling this but is a complete
>rewrite one of the options you are looking at?
The thought has crossed my mind. A complete rearchitecting is certainly
in order. If nothing else, a clean slate would help me think about
some of the issues without being trapped in whatever paradigm the
current system has. On the whole, what dirvish *does* is pretty sound,
but the moving parts occasionally seem to involve popping balloons,
chickens laying eggs, chutes, boots on levers, and table fans blowing
little sailboats across the room to turn on a toaster.
>> no use() or require() needed :-D
>
>no use or require needed with a simple cp either. I didn't get the
>whole install setup. a rewrite might improve this as well.
Uh. That was sarcasm -- use() and require() are good and desirable
things, as are namespaces and .pm files. I would like to see
strictures and warnings active as well. As a central example, one
might note that $Options is essentially an object, yet uses none of the
OO tools which perl provides. What we currently have are a lot of
implicit package globals, where the implicit package is 'main'. That's
pretty incompatible with most of the common mechanisms for separating
concerns, reuse, abstraction, etc.
--Eric
--
A counterintuitive sansevieria trifasciata was once literalized
guiltily.
--Product of Artificial Intelligence
---------------------------------------------------
http://scratchcomputing.com
---------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Dirvish mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.dirvish.org/mailman/listinfo/dirvish
