Re^2: Juerd, the overlooked (ORMs, Webapps)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Juerd, the overlooked (ORMs, Webapps) by jettero (Monsignor) on Jul 31, 2008 at 15:23 UTC
Experimental like "(?{ code })" or experimental like pseudo-hashes? That's the question. -Paul	[reply]
Re^4: Juerd, the overlooked (ORMs, Webapps) by Arunbear (Prior) on Jul 31, 2008 at 17:30 UTC
They're not only experimental, but also lacking in robustness e.g. you may find lvalue considered harmful... interesting.	[reply]
Re^5: Juerd, the overlooked (ORMs, Webapps) by Juerd (Abbot) on Aug 03, 2008 at 21:28 UTC
This argument extrapolated leads to "variables considered harmful" and is total bollocks. Indeed it can be problematic when you can assign arbitrary values to variables, with no validation whatsoever. That's also the basis of many programming languages, and programming would be very impractical without this. An object property is just a variable attached to the object. It's insane to treat it much differently. While value validation is a useful addition, it's not necessary. Many a time value validation means you're limited by the API designer's creativity, and gets in the way. Until we have Perl 6, I prefer to write code that isn't picky. Having tolerant code is not so bad as it looks, especially if you consider that making something non-picky afterwards is hard in Perl 5.	[reply]
Re^4: Juerd, the overlooked (ORMs, Webapps) by moritz (Cardinal) on Jul 31, 2008 at 15:56 UTC
You question boils down to experimental like "not working reliably, and being marked experimental for the last two major releases" or experimental like "removed in newer perls"? I don't think lvalue subs have been removed in blead, so it's more likely the first option.	[reply]
Re^4: Juerd, the overlooked (ORMs, Webapps) by John M. Dlugosz (Monsignor) on Aug 05, 2008 at 07:05 UTC
lvalue returns are orthodox in Perl 6, and with the trend to back-porting Perl 6 features to 5.x, I don't see them dropping it.	[reply]