Re^7: OO automatic accessor generation

Not understanding what you are working on will eventually come back to bite you in some way or another.

What part of Moose hides the effective understanding of classes, instances, attributes, methods, and method dispatch from the user? What part of blessed hashes bestows greater understanding?

You're making a straw man argument that people who roll their own object systems understand more about the problem domain than people who use well-designed, well-tested, robust existing object systems, as if throwing just enough code together to solve what you think is the problem produces complete understanding.

If that were the case, we wouldn't have Matt's Script Archive. We wouldn't be able to find at least three and usually seven bugs in hand-rolled CGI parsers. (We wouldn't see people storing plaintext passwords in databases.)

Comment on Re^7: OO automatic accessor generation

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^8: OO automatic accessor generation by Herkum (Parson) on Nov 13, 2009 at 16:05 UTC
I not saying they should write their own and publish it. The argument I am making is that that people who have tried to roll their own are more likely to understand issues that crop up, because they encounter them as problem. Therefore are more like to understand and appreciate what a OO system provides.	[reply]
Re^9: OO automatic accessor generation by chromatic (Archbishop) on Nov 13, 2009 at 19:28 UTC
See also my point about MSA and hand-rolled CGI processors. Dominus had a quote somewhere around here that I can't find, something to the effect of "I'm not going to use a hammer until I've finished driving these nails in with my forehead, but thanks for the advice."	[reply]