in reply to Should I learn Moose

I wonder if we had Moose a few years ago, if more developers would have stuck with Perl instead of jumping ship. I think it's fab, and it deals, in part, with many of the problems some people have with Perl's OO model. Check out Chromatic's Attributes of Elegant Perl: Concision for an example of one of Moose's benefits (it actually uses MooseX::Declare, a Moose extension)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Should I learn Moose
by stvn (Monsignor) on Aug 25, 2009 at 15:58 UTC
    I wonder if we had Moose a few years ago, ...

    But we did, Moose is almost 3 1/2 years old at this point :)

    ... if more developers would have stuck with Perl instead of jumping ship.

    Actually, I have had several people tell me that Moose has kept them from jumping ship, and I know of at least one case (Piers Cawley) who has come back from Ruby-land because of Moose (MooseX::Declare specifically).

    -stvn
[reply]
      True, we did have Moose 3.5 years ago, but it was just one of the competing object solutions, and it's Meta model benefits weren't apparent to me in those days. I seem to remember Inside-Out objects being popular at the time, as well as of the MakeMethod-type of solutions. Plus MooseX::Declare is the cherry on top! I'm hoping that Moose becomes a defacto standard, kinda like Catalyst and DBIx::Class. The alternatives will still be available to those who want them (I use CGI::Application rather than Catalyst myself), but it means those looking for a solution don't just trawl through CPAN and guess...
[reply]
        I'm hoping that Moose becomes a defacto standard,...

        Well, this is Perl and to some degree TIMTOWTDI means that nothing is the standard, because there is always another way to do it :)

        That said, I am proud to say that Moose recently surpassed Class::Accessor in the number of CPAN modules that require it (Moose has 590, where C::A has 567).

        -stvn
[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom