Re^2: Thoughts on new 'class' OO in upcoming perl

> when the novice hits the limits of this new system they can then be introduced to the many other ways that Perl has for working with OO

Adding "Yet another incompatible OOP" system ? I'm skeptical ...

Edit

> "See, Perl now has OO, just like python/ruby/lua/go/whatever!"

I dare say adding sub-signatures including named arguments to core would have a much bigger return of investment.

Most beginners don't chose a language for their OO-system, they start fiddling around solving a minor problem and get stuck when they have fun instead of getting frustrated.

Function signatures are a frustrating bumping stone.

Cheers Rolf
_{(addicted to the 𐍀𐌴𐍂𐌻 Programming Language :)

Wikisyntax for the Monastery}

Comment on Re^2: Thoughts on new 'class' OO in upcoming perl

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Thoughts on new 'class' OO in upcoming perl by cavac (Prior) on Mar 06, 2023 at 13:06 UTC
I dare say adding sub-signatures including named arguments to core would have a much bigger return of investment. Thankfully, 5.36 provided sub-sigs. Ok, it's like the James Webb Space Telescope: A couple of decades late and way over budget. But now they are operational, both the JWST and sub-signatures turned out to be rather good. At least, from my point of view. PerlMonks XP is useless? Not anymore: XPD - Do more with your PerlMonks XP	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^3: Thoughts on new 'class' OO in upcoming perl
by cavac (Prior) on Mar 06, 2023 at 13:06 UTC

I dare say adding sub-signatures including named arguments to core would have a much bigger return of investment.

Thankfully, 5.36 provided sub-sigs. Ok, it's like the James Webb Space Telescope: A couple of decades late and way over budget. But now they are operational, both the JWST and sub-signatures turned out to be rather good. At least, from my point of view.

PerlMonks XP is useless? Not anymore: XPD - Do more with your PerlMonks XP

[reply]