Re^2: Should I learn Moose

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

Comment on Re^2: Should I learn Moose

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Should I learn Moose by astroboy (Chaplain) on Aug 25, 2009 at 21:58 UTC
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]
Re^4: Should I learn Moose by stvn (Monsignor) on Aug 26, 2009 at 03:45 UTC
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]