Re^4: Some thoughts on Moose Attributes

You digressed a bit to talk about Roles...that could be a new topic. I know Roles (in the abstract sense) quite a lot better than I do about Moose. One of the things you mentioned makes me ponder a bit, but my meditation queue is a bit long already.

(I've also noticed how delegation makes aggregation much cleaner to use. So... if the Role doesn't mess with the containing object, just use delegation and containment. Using 'handles' you have the clean syntax without mentioning the composited object.) Why am I likely to remain a Moose user?

For the same reason that Perl's best feature is CPAN; Moose has "community support". It does do things for me that I've gotten benefit from, and many new features and different ways of approaching things is already published and ready to reuse.

Also, major packages like Catalyst and FormFu are Moose-ified, so if I will monkey around with those I need to know what I'm doing.

So, you didn't comment on the second of my ponderables: can Moose live with direct access to state as hash elements of $self?

Comment on Re^4: Some thoughts on Moose Attributes

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: Some thoughts on Moose Attributes by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on May 02, 2011 at 02:35 UTC
So, you didn't comment on the second of my ponderables: can Moose live with direct access to state as hash elements of $self? Hm. The simple answer is: I don't know. The more thoughtful answer is, if I am not going to use the generated accessors; and I see no use for the introspection, what would I get from Moose? It cannot generate my non-accessor methods for me, so nothing to gain there. And one of Moose' strongest features is that it will inter-operate, subclass and superclass, bog standard blessed ref classes. So, I don't need to use Moose in order to benefit from existing moose-based modules. At that point, your ponderable becomes a moot issue. (For me.) Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error. "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^5: Some thoughts on Moose Attributes
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on May 02, 2011 at 02:35 UTC

So, you didn't comment on the second of my ponderables: can Moose live with direct access to state as hash elements of $self?

Hm. The simple answer is: I don't know.

The more thoughtful answer is, if I am not going to use the generated accessors; and I see no use for the introspection, what would I get from Moose?

It cannot generate my non-accessor methods for me, so nothing to gain there.

And one of Moose' strongest features is that it will inter-operate, subclass and superclass, bog standard blessed ref classes. So, I don't need to use Moose in order to benefit from existing moose-based modules.

At that point, your ponderable becomes a moot issue. (For me.)

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

[reply]