Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from March 2011
Joel Roth <joelz@pobox.com> writes: > Object::Tiny is useful because it is minimalist. > [...] > I added my own simple setter: > [...] > That's enough for my stand-alone app. Basically, you augmented Object::Tiny to the level that I described as minimal for a struct builder. > If you're "rolling your own" on top of Object::Tiny, > you may need to access the hash structure for > for a set method, or a serialize method, or > for some type of AUTOLOAD based delegation. If you're "rolling your own" on top of Object::Tiny, you'll very soon incorporate the few lines of O::T code you can still use and drop O::T alltogether. It is hardly worth the effort to keep it as an additional layer (and additional dependency) in your module. > Do our recommendations for OO frameworks consider > the learning process, or do we assume that a > newbie should start with Moose because that is > what an expert would do? Even with an expert framework like Moose (not my words) there's a learning curve. Using Moose is not trivial. Installing Moose is even less trivial. It has a dependency chain of 40 modules, several non-PP. And even if you overcome that, when something goes wrong you'll be confronted with the bare metal of Perl's OO system. So a basic understanding of Perl's OO fundamentals is necessary anyway. > When I asked Adam Kennedy, "why not add setters to Object::Tiny?" he > explained that while everyone will want setters, people won't agree on > syntax. In other words, O::T is useful since it doesn't do anything that may be considered controversial. I'd say: choose a setter syntax, implement it, use it, and cut the energy-splilling semi-religious battles. > And we don't agree on frameworks, either. Same here. > Diversity in perl frameworks may similarly discourage developers > (including organizations) that want a single right answer. Exactly my point. There should be choices, alternatives, but based on functionality and not on cosmetic details. A final note: I deliberately made the destinction between a struct builder and an OO framework. I still think a good struct builder would suit the needs in many situations where now a sort-of-OO framework is used. -- JohanThread Previous | Thread Next