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 ;-)
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.
I assume the ADJUST call order is this:
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 ;-)
In reply to Re^2: Thoughts on new 'class' OO in upcoming perl
by cavac
in thread Thoughts on new 'class' OO in upcoming perl
by cavac
For: | Use: | ||
& | & | ||
< | < | ||
> | > | ||
[ | [ | ||
] | ] |