develooper Front page | perl.module-authors | Postings from December 2005

Re: New module: FLV file parsing

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Chris Dolan
Date:
December 3, 2005 11:11
Subject:
Re: New module: FLV file parsing
Message ID:
C778D275-ED21-421B-AE0D-60EB8E625341@clotho.com
On Dec 2, 2005, at 4:20 PM, Austin Schutz wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 04:04:11PM -0600, Chris Dolan wrote:
>
>> The FF:: namespace is a terrible idea, in my opinion.  I expect that
>> it will be meaningless to the majority of module searchers.  The
>> argument that search makes names irrelevant is just silly.
>>
>
>     ..because?
>
>     Ok, I want to do something with my flash file. I search for
> 'flash file'...  Oh look, there's a flash file parser. Do I care  
> what it's
> called? No. I concur that the module name is effectively  
> meaningless, but I
> don't see that it makes any difference to the searcher.

Nitpick: FLV is not Flash.  FLV is a video format that is often used  
by Flash movies, but it is not Flash and does not work standalone  
without a Flash movie to control it.  SWF is the file format for  
Flash movies.

>     It's marginally helpful to have a useful name when including it
> in a module so code doesn't look like $flv = new  
> ASDFsdafs::sjhsdlk, but
> beyond that, what tangible and practical difference does it make?

You assume that all authors discover modules solely through  
search.cpan.org?  I often discover modules by reading other people's  
code and seeing what modules they use.  If I see "use FF::FOOBAR" at  
the top of someone's module, I will have no idea what they are trying  
to do.  But if I see, say "FileFormat::Video::FOOBAR" then at least I  
will know the author is trying to interact with a stream of video data.

To me, it's as much about readable code as it is about findable modules.

>
>> If that
>> were true, the practice of bouncing name ideas off this email list
>> would cease, and I'd just name it FLV.pm.
>>
>
>     As I understand it there's some rationale for keeping the top  
> level
> namespace small, so that would probably not be a good choice.  
> Beyond that,
> name it what you will.
>     I submit these long threads about which module name is better than
> some other similar name are a waste of time, and I do indeed suggest
> we take them off list as a general rule.
>
>     Austin

I strongly disagree.  I think good naming is important for  
readability and maintainability.  Like good variable and method  
names, module names should be self-documenting whenever feasible.   
Since module names are harder to change than variable or method  
names, I say a little forethought and discussion is justified.

Chris
-- 
Chris Dolan, Software Developer, Clotho Advanced Media Inc.
608-294-7900, fax 294-7025, 1435 E Main St, Madison WI 53703
vCard: http://www.chrisdolan.net/ChrisDolan.vcf

Clotho Advanced Media, Inc. - Creators of MediaLandscape Software  
(http://www.media-landscape.com/) and partners in the revolutionary  
Croquet project (http://www.opencroquet.org/)



Thread Previous | Thread Next


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About