Re^6: Moose or Mouse for production use

I can't speak to the OP's reasons for liking the type of encapsulation offered by Class::Std, but in my personal (professional) experience the threat against proper encapsulation (and the consequences this has on code maintainability) doesn't come from the sophisticated and determined Perl hacker but rather the cube neighbor or remote colleague (or even myself) who is either used to dealing with native Perl objects or is having a day off. In that context, the protection offered by InsideOut objects is good enough. It's akin to locking your car in the parking lot. It makes clear you don't wish anybody to get in.

Comment on Re^6: Moose or Mouse for production use

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^7: Moose or Mouse for production use by stvn (Monsignor) on Apr 02, 2009 at 01:50 UTC
It's akin to locking your car in the parking lot. It makes clear you don't wish anybody to get in. Actually I think Inside-Out objects are more like a car alarm system. If you try and mess with it, it will likely complain very loudly but ultimately it can be bypassed by the determined. IMO, simply using accessors is "locking your car" because OO Best Practices already dictates that you should always use accessors to get at your slot data. -stvn	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^7: Moose or Mouse for production use
by stvn (Monsignor) on Apr 02, 2009 at 01:50 UTC

It's akin to locking your car in the parking lot. It makes clear you don't wish anybody to get in.

Actually I think Inside-Out objects are more like a car alarm system. If you try and mess with it, it will likely complain very loudly but ultimately it can be bypassed by the determined.

IMO, simply using accessors is "locking your car" because OO Best Practices already dictates that you should always use accessors to get at your slot data.

-stvn

[reply]