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

Re: Is anyone else using Object::Pad? [was Re: Twigils]

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Darren Duncan
Date:
August 19, 2021 04:40
Subject:
Re: Is anyone else using Object::Pad? [was Re: Twigils]
Message ID:
2e02566a-aec6-e203-f7bf-ee3cd0ef01e3@darrenduncan.net
Paul,

What you say is true in some cases, but for others I disagree with the idea that 
one can't comment without having first written code using Object::Pad.

I feel I already understand the user experience well enough just from the 
Corinna spec and I don't need to use Object::Pad to understand it.  Also using 
Object::Pad will take an order of magnitude or several more time than commenting 
hypothetically.

I have already committed (per Twitter comment a few weeks ago) to use 
Object::Pad to build my next real Perl project in (open source), however it will 
take at minimum a few months if not longer before I can get around to starting 
that, so commenting from hypothetical only is a very effective way for me to 
contribute to Corinna betterment now when it is needed most.

Also I agree that renaming Object::Pad to Corinna::Prototype per Elvin Asianov's 
suggestion should boost its visibility significantly.

-- Darren Duncan

On 2021-08-18 6:54 a.m., Paul "LeoNerd" Evans wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 14:30:39 +0100
> "Paul \"LeoNerd\" Evans" <leonerd@leonerd.org.uk> wrote:
> 
>> Also, both of these points are made by reference to myself having
>> actually written large amounts of real actual code using Object::Pad.
>> [1].
> 
> Furthermore on this note, I am getting somewhat frustrated in a lot of
> these Corinna design discussions, when it feels like everyone else
> involved is discussing from a purely hypothetical perspective without
> having written any real code.
> 
> Object::Pad exists.
> 
>    https://metacpan.org/pod/Object::Pad
> 
> It is an experimental test-ground for all of these Corinna-based ideas.
> I began writing it almost two years ago now, precisely for the reason
> of giving us a good experimental playground to try out these Corinna
> ideas for real in real code (i.e. not just a paper design exercise).
> 
> I often get the impression that nobody else has even seen that it
> exists, let alone actually tried writing any real code using it.
> metacpan's reverse-depends seems to support this impression:
> 
>    https://metacpan.org/module/Object::Pad/requires?size=500
> 
> At time of writing, there are only three distributions on that list not
> written by me. Of those, two of them are just benchmarking it and not
> using the code for real. The only other one is written/released by
> a $work client of mine - admittedly they're writing a lot more of
> that one than I am on it.
> 
> But overall this doesn't give me the impression that almost anyone else
> is actually trying to use these things for real.
> 
> If folks are going to get involved in debating the design of Corinna,
> can you at the very least be familiar with what already exists and is
> actually implemented (thus avoiding any comments on "oh that might be
> hard to implement" and the like), and ideally, get a feel for what it
> is like to actually use the system in practice.
> 


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