develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from March 2011

Re: Revising Perl's OO docs - a new OO tutorial

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Tom Christiansen
Date:
March 5, 2011 13:32
Subject:
Re: Revising Perl's OO docs - a new OO tutorial
Message ID:
6272.1299360759@chthon
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.

--tom

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