"Classes are just packages" pre-supposes a class-based paradigm. I want to put less emphasis on classes and more on objects. It's possible to create objects by composing roles on-the-fly, for example. And even though these objects are still backed by packages and stashes and stuff, you don't have to think of each class being a package and being defined in a module.

This is stuff which is hard to do properly in languages like Java, but you can still use it to conceive how you design your program, and then "down translate" that into whatever programming language you're using. For example, something like roles/traits/mixins can be emulated in Java using a combination of interfaces and delegation.

> "Classes are just packages" pre-supposes a class-based paradigm.

so your definition of "Delegation" goes into the direction of the traditional JS model where objects "beget"° other objects?

While this is certainly very important, I'd rather prefer a general book listing usual patterns for dynamic languages.

It's very hard to discuss OO when the terminology is dominated by GoF book concepts from the static typing world.

Cheers Rolf
_{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)
Wikisyntax for the Monastery FootballPerl is like chess, only without the dice}

°) beget borrowed from Crockford's "JS the good parts" book

By "delegation", I mean like handles in Moose/Moo.

toby döt ink