Re^2: In praise of Perl's object system.

I can't say I agree. Perl 5's object orientation is high enough that you don't have to drop out of Perl 5 to extend it (for most things), and low enough that it doesn't trap you in any specific way of doing things. That's very perlish to me.

If it weren't this powerful, we wouldn't have Moose today, but whatever people thought OO should be like when Perl 5 first got it.

Ordinary morality is for ordinary people. -- Aleister Crowley

Comment on Re^2: In praise of Perl's object system.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: In praise of Perl's object system. by Your Mother (Archbishop) on Sep 20, 2010 at 18:03 UTC
This is exactly what I was thinking: A) the OO system in Perl5 is very Perlish to me and B) the low-level, flexible, "incompleteness" of it is the only reason we had a chance to arrive at a kit as cool and modern as Moose.	[reply]
Re^4: In praise of Perl's object system. by phaylon (Curate) on Sep 20, 2010 at 18:15 UTC
Right. And if one checks out MooseX::* on CPAN, it becomes evident that Moose itself is still developing and advancing. And since Moose itself is a library, updating it independently from Perl is a big win as well. I don't need to upgrade Perl and my whole ecosystem just to use a newer or better MooseX extension. Not mentioning the fact that Moose is optional, and its overhead can be skipped by falling back to pure Perl OO or lighter OO libraries when required. It all makes my job easier :) Ordinary morality is for ordinary people. -- Aleister Crowley	[reply]


Just another Perl shrine
	PerlMonks