[Bioperl-l] Bio::FeatureHolderI interface confusion
pwilk at videotron.ca
Tue Jun 17 22:13:25 EDT 2003
> > Otherwise I'm having difficulty seeing the point.
>Probably not many people do
Well, for fun I was looking into making the fasta_ncbi object someone
suggested. As I got into perusing the interfaces , I got a little lost. I
though it would be good to put the class hierarchy to memory.
I appreciate Chris' point, and I think the interfaces are at least edging
towards spaghetti with continued bioperl growth.
The problem with OO is the interpretation of what OO metaphor means. And I
think strict adherence to OO programming can be its own undoing. 1
particular OO model is not adequate for all life's problems.
A moderate position would be to have a multi-paradigm approach where code
is constructed appropriately to get a specific job done, built for
extending, or built with strict rules in mind.
In many cases code is a lot faster and efficient top-down. In many cases
the OO model is not needed, in other cases its an elegant solution.
Is it possible to refactor bioperl with sensible multi-paradigm divisions?
and by multi I mean only a few, say 3 or 4? Refactoring could then be
limited to what is appropriate.
More information about the Bioperl-l