Well, and some of your points are just plain wrong.

That's why i discuss this sort of stuff on PM, instead of ranting about "the unfairness of it all" somewhere else on the internet. I always strive to learn ;-)

Your example of a subclass setting a field to a fixed value has been discussed in great length in the GitHub discussions on Corinna

As long as it's a topic that isn't forgotten, i'm happy. If in the end the decision is "we will not allow that", i can live with that and will find ways to integrate "the new way of doing things" in my code.

Instead, the declarations of the parent classes are evaluated by the auto-generated new-method, and the ADJUST-block of the parent is called

I assume the ADJUST call order is this:

1. grandparent
2. parent
3. current class

However, ignoring Moo* is, well, ignorance.

I didn't ignore Moo* as such. I looked into it (a long long time ago, though). I dimly remember it seemed to have a lot of performance and RAM usage problems, at least for my workloads. And it didn't bring enough benefits for my single-developer projects to make sense.

Things might have changed. And having a newer OO system integrated into Perl core is a different ballgame altogether.

But to be fair, i can be a very stubborn, ignorant person sometimes who likes to do some things "the old ways". But if i find some new way that i like more, i'am not unknown to become a preacher of those "new ways of doing things". I haven't yet decided if i will "go class" or "stay bless". But you can take it from the time i've taken to look into it and discuss it here on PM that i think it certainly has peaked my interest in a serious (and good) way. If i thought "class" was rubbish, i would have just ignored it completely ;-)