4 ms·
As for Moose, he (DDG author) answered this here http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/bbqw7/i_am_the_founder_of_a_search_engine_duck_duck_go/ http://www.reddi
by sdesol 16y ago
As for Moose, he (DDG author) answered this here
http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/bbqw7/i_am_the_founder_of_a_search_engine_duck_duck_go/ http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/bbqw7/i_am_the_founder...
Having written an indexer in Perl for my current startup product, I really can't see the need for using something like Moose. I'm biased though, as I'm not a big fan of OO programming. I gave it a try in Perl years ago but it really sucked. OO programming that is, but I guess Moose was designed to fix this, but it's a little too late for me.
I was taught C in school and I've learned to live without OO.
- zaphar 16y agoI can't say I disagree with him on the dislike for OO. However if you are going to do OO in perl Moose is the way to do it.
- someone_here 16y agoMoose is nice, but making your own objects can be pretty cool too. Try blessing a function ;)
- mhd 16y agoIf you agree with the design decisions. It's rather expressive, but not exactly a minimalistic approach to OO. Did they ever improve the rather steep performance penalty? (esp. startup)
- jrockway 16y agoRuntime is fast, startup is not as fast. I am not sure why anyone cares about startup time. I start my apps about once a month. 1 second instead of .1 second doesn't really matter. It's like saying, "C++ has an unacceptable performance penalty" because you have to compile your code before you use it. Yeah, you do. You can pay a million times at runtime or you can pay once at compile time. For desktop apps, start them when you log in and connect to them via App::Persistent.
- __david__ 16y agoIt's certainly worth thinking about if the app is a command line app. No one wants "ls" to have a 5 second startup time.
- jrockway 16y agoI agree. Please contribute your fix to Moose.
- natep 16y agoI believe he was responding to your "I am not sure why anyone cares about startup time." While you may have been referring specifically to Moose, it's possible to interpret that as a blanket statement for all programs and languages, even in context.
- mhd 16y agoEspecially when you're learning Moose, writing some more involved Unix scripts would be an option. It's not that bad for those circumstances, though. Personally, I just have problems wrapping my Perl style around more involved types of OO, so for Perl I'm happy enough with normal packages and procedural programming. And as a side note, the compilation times for C++ made a lot of people switch to another language, although Moose is about a few orders of magnitude away from those kinds of problems.
- sdesol 16y agoI don't think he ever said he disliked OO. The comment after the reddit link are my feelings on OO.
- draegtun 16y agoI really can't see the need for using something like Moose Well Moose is certainly getting traction in some big companies like BBC, Cisco, Hearst, Symantec and Yahoo. ref: http://moose.perl.org/about.html http://moose.perl.org/about.html
- sdesol 16y agoLike all things, I think it depends on the problem that you are trying to solve. Some things lend themselves well to having a nice abstraction layer while other times, this abstraction layer just adds unnecessary complexity. I don't want this to turn into a C vs C++ debate but I do agree with Linus in that it's nice being able to just grep for something.
- draegtun 16y agoI agree, thats why I like using language like Perl because it doesn't force me into any rigid pattern(s). But when it comes to OO i (nearly) always use Moose.