I am now quite happily blasting out OO perl code and very glad I took the time to learn. I was badly scarred by C++, and mildy traumatised by Delphi . I could just about turn out code that compiled in Delphi, but that was it. I tended to treat objects like function libraries. It sounds silly, but everyone starts somewhere.
My attitudes changed while I was programming my gnutella client (a little hobby of mine). At one point it became clear that I would have to hand the packets from module to module, allowing them to be modified by many different routines. It was clear even to my poor awareness of OO that this was a situation where OO would be very beneficial. And it has worked tremendously well.
The code is still an intriguing mess of procedural, OO and at one point, functional styles. I hope this is a trick that perl never loses - it would have sucked having to do the whole thing OO style, ditto procedural.
If you want to convince people that OO is worth it you could find an example where it would be a horrible mess to try and do it procedural, but very very simple with OO techniques. We already feel smug because perl saves so much time, I'm sure all you have to do is demonstrate how OO perl can save even more time, and people will be hooked.
____________________
Jeremy
I didn't believe in evil until I dated it.
In reply to Re: Reactions to OO-Perl
by jepri
in thread Reactions to OO-Perl
by pjf
For: | Use: | ||
& | & | ||
< | < | ||
> | > | ||
[ | [ | ||
] | ] |