Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from March 2011
Dave Rolsky wrote: First, Dave, thanks for your work. Your documentation is clear, understandable, and useful. > FWIW, the tutorial I wrote does not say anything like "using > Moose is a best practice. It does say: > We strongly recommend that you use one of these systems. Even > the most minimal of them eliminates a lot of repetitive > boilerplate. There's really no good reason to write your > classes from scratch in Perl. Isn't this in effect saying that you strongly recommend *not* using anything that Perl ships with to write classes with? I really don't feel a document that ships with Perl should say that, because it's completely self-defeating. It says the Perl you get isn't good enough to do Perl in. That's sad. > So I hardly thing this document says anything like "Moose is a best > practice". I'd be fine with any or all of: > - adding more caveats about Moose, Class::Accessor, or Object::Tiny > - mentioning other systems in the conclusion, or just mentioning that > many other options exist > - some waffling near the end about how nothing's set in stone, things > change, blah de blah blah, as long as it's near the end. Couldn't you please talk about things that Perl ships with, and preferably first? I know of two: Class::Struct and Hash::Util::FieldHash. One is too simplistic and the other too complicated, but both have had their uses. --tomThread Previous | Thread Next