OTOH, if something like Moose is setting up your accessors in declarative style, then it becomes a question of: is Moose correct?
FWIW, Moose is really well tested and the Moose development team is dedicated to test driven development. Class::MOP (the underlying meta object protocol that Moose is built on) has 2242 unit tests and Moose itself has 4632 unit tests. We also consider the test suites of the over 700 modules that depend on Moose to be an "external" test suite, so much so that we have a smoke testing setup which downloads and tests a set of approx. 100 of those CPAN modules and runs them before we release (and you can actually make it download all 700 or so if you want, but that tends to take a while). Additionally the Catalyst framework now uses Moose and since that is still a very active project Moose ends up getting exercised there as well.
One of the key selling points of Moose is that you no longer need to write tedious and repetitive accessors and constructors all the time. Moose instead provides a sane, consistent and well tested object system which does these things for you. We test it, so that you don't have too.
Now regarding "correct"-ness. No, we do not have a proof available to show that Moose is correct, but unless you're working in aerospace or academic research then I doubt that is what you mean. But you should know that Moose was built after about a year of steady R&D via the Pugs project and is based very heavily on tried and proven object models like CLOS and Smalltalk. It is and has been from the very start built as a solid production ready framework which very specifically does not make use of Perl black magic or insane hacks because the inherit fragility they bring to the code. In short, it is not a toy it is serious business.
In reply to Re^3: Help me avoid writing C Programs in Perl for a living
by stvn
in thread Help me avoid writing C Programs in Perl for a living
by cleverett
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |