Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
laziness, impatience, and hubris
 
PerlMonks  

Re^2: looking for a OR-mapper for Moose

by Sartak (Hermit)
on Apr 13, 2009 at 21:40 UTC ( [id://757287] : note . print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re: looking for a OR-mapper for Moose
in thread looking for a OR-mapper for Moose

Moose has been around for three years. It's being used in production by several companies with household names, as well as perhaps hundreds of smaller organizations and countless end-users.

Its theoretical foundation goes back probably nearly thirty years.

Is there anything in particular that makes you question Moose's provenness and solidity?

  • Comment on Re^2: looking for a OR-mapper for Moose

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: looking for a OR-mapper for Moose
by Corion (Patriarch) on Apr 14, 2009 at 06:44 UTC

    Being developped for three years means nothing - Perl6 has been in development for almost 10 years now.

    I'm not sure what you mean by "household names", but I don't think that I can ask my mother about any Moose-using-Perl company and get a set of answers that contains any of the names you seem to have in mind.

    I guess that we're both aware of many things whose theoretical foundations go back far longer than 30 years and that still are not a good idea.

    I question Mooses provenness because it's simply too young and while using it, I've seen that it's nice conceptually but doesn't buy me much over plain objects. I see it much like the Inside-Out fad that produced a slew of bad prerequisites and little else.

    Of course it's always questionable to use a fancy new technology for a mission critical part.

      Your obviously entitled to your own opinion and no one is forcing you to use Moose but allow me to clarify some things here.

      Being developped for three years means nothing - Perl6 has been in development for almost 10 years now.

      Your correct, being developed for 3 years means nothing. Being used heavily in several production systems for a wide variety of applications of varying sizes and problems domains for over 3 years does mean something.

      I'm not sure what you mean by "household names", but I don't think that I can ask my mother about any Moose-using-Perl company and get a set of answers that contains any of the names you seem to have in mind.

      Well, personally for $work we have used Moose for "household names" like Walmart and Marriott Hotels. Obviously we have used it for more than just these two, but these are the two names your mother is most likely to recognize. Additional I know that Moose is being used at Yahoo!, Symatec and IMDB, and depending on how internet savy your mother is she will possibly have encountered those names.

      I guess that we're both aware of many things whose theoretical foundations go back far longer than 30 years and that still are not a good idea.

      Yeah, we decided not to include those thing, for obvious reasons ;)

      I question Mooses provenness because it's simply too young and ...

      Moose is still young, but age is not the only measure of "provenness" that you should use, you should know that.

      ... while using it, I've seen that it's nice conceptually but doesn't buy me much over plain objects.

      Hmm, this is a matter of opinion, which you are entitled to have, but there are many Moose users out there who will strongly disagree with you on that.

      I see it much like the Inside-Out fad that produced a slew of bad prerequisites and little else.

      Again, your entitled to you opinion but others may disagree. Moose may very well also be a fad, only time will tell, but then again, maybe it won't ;)

      Of course it's always questionable to use a fancy new technology for a mission critical part.

      Agreed. Of course I disagree with the implication that Moose is a "fancy new technology" that is not "proven", so obviously I would not have issues using Moose for mission critical code (and I do).

      -stvn