develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from June 2021

Re: Not an OO RFC, take 2

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
mah.kitteh via perl5-porters
Date:
June 21, 2021 04:06
Subject:
Re: Not an OO RFC, take 2
Message ID:
CPzy96-WfkpVc4Jth2jsfEfzSFMkmVALEMgVGRCPEyi5Mbn0OwB1eADl0s1Fm1sXYmLTt4tNePmNoDx7OnCtvcUl7tF6qpNGfPqNNVKaDB4=@protonmail.ch
Thank you, Chris.

This is the kind of well done opion I'd love to see come forth and collected during an official RFC period.

..rest inline.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

On Sunday, June 20th, 2021 at 7:00 PM, Chris Prather <chris@prather.org> wrote:

> I'll try to be a bit less prosaic this time and leave the literary
>
> criticism behind. Maybe.
>
> Taking a cue from Nicholas, I've re-organized your email to make my reply
>
> more coherent. You basically ask the same question several different ways

Np, I've <snip>'d about 90% of your email. We do what we have to do.

>
> because (I assume) you think there's a communication error on your part ... I'm
>
> pretty sure the communication error is coming from us (or me).
>
> Also you describe yourself as a Perl programmer willing to change jobs
>
> before learning
>
> another language so I'm going to assume (possibly wrongly) you don't
>
> have a lot of
>
> experience with many object systems other than the plethora Perl has built on
>
> it's primitives. If this is true, you're working at a disadvantage.
>
> Perl's simplicity warps
>
> the conversation around the primitives in OO.

I'd leave the assumptions to things you know or have observed directly. I mean, how do you know I don't have a tremendous amount of experience with OOP Fortran and was really sad when it was no longer supported [1]? I don't have this experience, but I did know it was tried and is no longer supported. I am not saddened by this, though.

It is true I can repeat myself, especially when I feel like I'm talking to a wall. You replies are appreciated. I might write a lot less if I observed more thoughtful and higher quality discussions around here. But that's part of the intent of me suggesting we nurture this as part of the RFC process.

>
> On Sun, Jun 20, 2021 at 1:30 PM mah.kitteh via perl5-porters
>
> perl5-porters@perl.org wrote:
>
> Let's clear the easiest issue out of the way first:
>
> > I thought about this. I would suggest that things be named as clearly as possible. None of the OOP solutions in perl use clear names:

<snip>

> The proposal is for this to be named `use feature 'class'`. I can't
>
> think how that could be clarified, but I think we all welcome suggestions.

I guess I am confused. All I know about is a pre-pre-RFC. Pardon me if I missed this along the way. I am still trying to wrap my head around Cor, Corinna, and Object::Pad. I just recently stopped confusing Rakudo with PUGs.

>
> Now to the real discussion.

<snip>

Thank you for all the content you snipped. That indeed was a real discussion! I have read through it and will likely continue to study it more over RFC period.

> I kinda need a [citation needed] here, I've been using Moo/se since 2007 in my

I've seen some untestable sh*t in my day; for some reason untestable sh*t written using a MOP is worse than when it's not. Is that good enough? :-)

Cheers,
Brett

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortran#Specific_variants

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