[development] Module Builder Module 1.0

[Larry Garfield]

On Wednesday 22 February 2006 02:30, Bertrand Mansion wrote:

> >OK, I've not actually looked at it yet, so I can't comment on how
> >good/late-night the code is, but my knee-jerk reaction is that I don't
> > like code generation in the first place.  If the code is sufficiently
> > boilerplate that it can be auto-generated, then it's sufficiently
> > boilerplate that it should be written as a single routine and called with
> > paramters.  That's the logic behind functions and variables. :-)

*snip*

> >So yeah, code generation in general gets a -1 for me in favor of more
> > powerful and generalized polymorphic code.
>
> This is the most idiotic post I have read on this list so far. It starts
> with "I've not actually looked at it yet"... Well, if you haven't looked at
> it, why do you comment on it ? Do we care if you like code generation or
> not ? Do we care if you like "powerful and generalized polymorphic code" ?
> That's not the topic I think. This module is about building a module
> skeleton to make developers job easier.

Well good morning to you, too.

I was commenting specifically on the concept of code generation, rather than 
this specific code generator.  I stated as such up-front.  I view it as a 
bandaid.  A better long-term solution is to make the code more general so 
that you don't need a code generator in the first place.  

If you disagree, try giving a reason instead of being insulting.

> How do you think PHP extensions are written ? People use ext_skel or pecl
> CodeGen and it saves them a lot of time and makes it more fun to hack
> something fast. That's one thing that largely contributed to PHP success.

Having never written a PECL extension, I really couldn't say.  

> I am personally very thankful to the people who wrote Module_builder and
> will start to use it straight away even if it's not "powerful and
> generalized polymorphic code" :p

Great.  You do that.  I'll wait until HEAD unfreezes and then see if I can dig 
up the time to make it (or portions of it) unnecessary, or others are welcome 
to do so as well.  

I really don't see where you need to get nasty about it.  I wasn't saying 
Angie et al did anything wrong, just that I don't think it's a good long-term 
approach.  

-- 
Larry Garfield			AIM: LOLG42
larry at garfieldtech.com		ICQ: 6817012

"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of 
exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, 
which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to 
himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession 
of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it."  -- Thomas 
Jefferson