Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from March 2011
On Sun, Mar 06, 2011 at 11:39:30PM +0100, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote: > * Dave Rolsky <autarch@urth.org> [2011-02-28 21:50]: > > I've been working on a new OO tutorial for Perl. This is part > > of a larger goal for the Perl docs to revise all of the > > existing OO documentation. > > > > My new document is available online for review: > > > > http://urth.org/~autarch/new-pod/html/perlootut.pod.html > > http://urth.org/~autarch/new-pod/pod/perlootut.pod > > I’m sorry: I hate it. It’s just weak. There’s a lot of a weasel > language trying to excuse the old way for sucking, without saying > it sucks, and meanwhile trying to sell the new way, without quite > invalidating the old way. > > I don’t think that’s how it should read. > > All that stuff about the historical whys? > > Nobody cares. > > Us old fogies might, but novices will wonder why they’re told how > it used to be: what does it matter to them? It doesn’t make any > difference to the code they’re writing, does it? So why are they > getting a history lesson? If one thinks Perl code is "write once - read/modify never", you may have a point. It doesn't work that way everywhere though. There's an awful lot of active code out there that uses the "historical way" of creating objects. In fact, there's a lot of code written *TODAY* that uses the historical way of creating objects. In fact, I'd be utterly surprised if of OO code that's written this year, more than 10% of the classes aren't using the historical method. AbigailThread Previous | Thread Next