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:
Abigail
Date:
March 6, 2011 23:34
Subject:
Re: Revising Perl's OO docs - a new OO tutorial
Message ID:
20110307073424.GA26276@almanda
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.



Abigail

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