++ great discussion.. Interesting point on slow startup vs slow runtime.. Useful to know for daemons and mod perl stuffs.. Stuff that may do heavy lifting.. (Not the most useful for funky cli trick scripts.. but then.. Paul Graham (who's actually a lisp hacker.. ) has some interesting arguments about coder time vs cpu time. I'm sure perl hackers will take kindly to it.)
I gotta tell ya, the use of Moose is radical enough that with it.. I would argue you're not writing perl anymore. (Nothing wrong with that!)
hobbs made a very simple but important point 786957, about how the coder is likely to introduce bugs themselves.
Perhaps there is discussion on, should Moose be native to perl?
Maybe this is the way that perl should implement OO- is that a stretch?
I mean.. If we open a book that teaches perl, and the OO section comes up, should it just teach Moose? (Not a rhetorical question.)
I have some concerns about .. the development of perl addresses some of the issues that Moose does- is this incorrect? If so.. Should we not trust the development of perl over the development of Moose? (It's also possible that this last, is not an important issue. As the world is evolving rather quickly.)
In reply to Re^3: Modern vs postmodern?
by leocharre
in thread Modern vs postmodern?
by Anonymous Monk
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |