in reply to looking towards learning OOP

The Damian's OO book is very good, and still relevant today. Don't bother with Moose or Spiffy or anything else with a silly name until you understand the basics cos that's what 90% of the code you'll need to maintain will use. Even then, only use SillyNameModule when doing things the normal way is insufficient. And I have yet to find a single case when the normal way is insufficient.

However, I say all that with one caveat - when I read Damian's book, I already knew how to do OO. Whether it works well as an introduction to OO for a complete beginner I couldn't say. For that, I can recommend the first edition of Java In A Nutshell which is what I learned OO from, but that's been out of print for a long time, and that useful bit was removed from later editions. ISBN 1565921836.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: looking towards learning OOP
by jrockway (Acolyte) on Sep 16, 2008 at 00:09 UTC

    In my opinion, the "normal way" is always insufficient for anything of greater complexity than "hello, world".

    Myth: Moose is an unnecessary dependency

    Basically, you can not use Moose... but why? Why pass up on something that makes your application go together more quickly and probably results in more correct code?

[reply]

      They would prefer to learn the fundamentals before using something that does it for them. The same reason why some would like to learn HTML before using Dreamweaver.

      However, there is a line; 'learn how to build a computer from scratch before using it' and so on.

      I'm so adjective, I verb nouns!

      chomp; # nom nom nom
[reply]
      If you think the normal way is always insufficient, I have to wonder what you're doing wrong. It certainly works well enough for me. And my colleagues. And the authors of most of the objectish modules I ever use.
[reply]
      because it's documentation is almost ... a joke ?
[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom