5 ms·

Observe the vague handwavy terms I used: I'm about 18 months out of date as I made the switch to Python around the start of 09. At the time, Catalyst was very

by jlees 16y ago

Observe the vague handwavy terms I used: I'm about 18 months out of date as I made the switch to Python around the start of 09. At the time, Catalyst was very unfriendly (a quick google - it still is) and nowhere near as rapid-accessible as Django, just because of the amount of head-twisting you have to do to get things up and running. It may have changed, but frankly I have little interest in investigating it, and I expect most other people who drifted away from Perl are in a similar boat. Also, having developed an OO backend for a site running in Perl, I never wish to do so again. Your definition of 'better OO system' clearly differs from mine.

KaeseEs 16y ago
He's referring to Moose, which is an insanely good object system, which wasn't prevalent at all 18 months ago but is nearly de rigueur in all but a handful of cases today. It's a mashup of CLOS, Perl 6, Smalltalk and a few other things that remains consistent, Perlish and intuitive. It's also crazy extensible - just look at the MooseX namespace on CPAN to see what I mean.
- prodigal_erik 16y ago
  How much of CPAN has been migrated to Moose, as opposed to directly calling "bless" as the docs[1] advocate even now? As I understand it, the story on interop between the two styles is "don't go there". [1]http://perldoc.perl.org/perlobj.html http://perldoc.perl.org/perlobj.html
  - berntb 16y ago
    The perlobj perldoc is about the old style OO -- and discusses the old style OO... :-) It doesn't discuss any CPAN modules at all (there are quite a lot about OO). Are you trolling? What problems do you mean with Moose and the blessed OO?
    - prodigal_erik 16y ago
      Not at all. I learned Perl from the manpages, and I'm mystified how noobs are to discover and convince themselves that "man perlobj" is now bad advice yet remains official. As for bless/Moose interop, I read somewhere there were big problems mixing the two but don't remember the specifics (I mostly dropped Perl a long time ago over its dogged attempts to guess what I probably wanted when I made a mistake). Others in this thread now say that's not true if it ever was, which is good news for users of pre-Moose CPAN modules.
      - berntb 16y ago
        >>I learned Perl from the manpages Well, that was impressive. Stupid, but impressive... :-) >>discover and convince themselves that "man perlobj" is now bad advice yet remains official. AGAIN: Those man pages doesn't discuss CPAN modules. But afaik, they recommend books and the web...
        prodigal_erik 16y ago
        Meh, I don't care for being spoonfed. I also read RFCs. I'm actually embarrassed to have paid for Real World Haskell, because if I were as smart as I want to be I wouldn't need it. In this case, neither perlobj, perlboot, nor perlbot mention any CPAN modules at all, and perltoot cites a couple but Moose isn't among them.
      - chromatic 16y ago
        I'm mystified how noobs are to discover and convince themselves that "man perlobj" is now bad advice yet remains official. Me too, which is one reason I'd like to remove it, or at least fix it.
        berntb 16y ago
        The Perl 5 world seems to change quite a lot every few years. If people have an old install, perldoc might be out of date. Wouldn't it be better to just add an URL at the top of the page to a page at perl.org and put the best practices for CPAN there?
  - phaylon 16y ago
    I use Moose combined with non Moose OO libraries all the time and only run into troubles when they are doing some really funky stuff on the inside (The Glib wrappers were hard to tackle, but they have to be funky, since they're a C OO to Perl interface). Most of this is thanks to MooseX-NonMoose which takes care of most common things.
  - chromatic 16y ago
    > As I understand it, the story on interop between the two styles is "don't go there". Interop between Moose and legacy Perl 5 OO works just fine.
- jlees 16y ago
  Good to know. Should I ever feel masochistic enough to look back at Perl, I'll undoubtedly check it out. And this reply alone is proof Perl isn't dead.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

by jlees 16y ago

KaeseEs 16y ago

He's referring to Moose, which is an insanely good object system, which wasn't prevalent at all 18 months ago but is nearly de rigueur in all but a handful of cases today. It's a mashup of CLOS, Perl 6, Smalltalk and a few other things that remains consistent, Perlish and intuitive. It's also crazy extensible - just look at the MooseX namespace on CPAN to see what I mean.

prodigal_erik 16y ago
How much of CPAN has been migrated to Moose, as opposed to directly calling "bless" as the docs[1] advocate even now? As I understand it, the story on interop between the two styles is "don't go there". [1]http://perldoc.perl.org/perlobj.html http://perldoc.perl.org/perlobj.html
- berntb 16y ago
  The perlobj perldoc is about the old style OO -- and discusses the old style OO... :-) It doesn't discuss any CPAN modules at all (there are quite a lot about OO). Are you trolling? What problems do you mean with Moose and the blessed OO?
  - prodigal_erik 16y ago
    Not at all. I learned Perl from the manpages, and I'm mystified how noobs are to discover and convince themselves that "man perlobj" is now bad advice yet remains official. As for bless/Moose interop, I read somewhere there were big problems mixing the two but don't remember the specifics (I mostly dropped Perl a long time ago over its dogged attempts to guess what I probably wanted when I made a mistake). Others in this thread now say that's not true if it ever was, which is good news for users of pre-Moose CPAN modules.
    - berntb 16y ago
      >>I learned Perl from the manpages Well, that was impressive. Stupid, but impressive... :-) >>discover and convince themselves that "man perlobj" is now bad advice yet remains official. AGAIN: Those man pages doesn't discuss CPAN modules. But afaik, they recommend books and the web...
      - prodigal_erik 16y ago
        Meh, I don't care for being spoonfed. I also read RFCs. I'm actually embarrassed to have paid for Real World Haskell, because if I were as smart as I want to be I wouldn't need it. In this case, neither perlobj, perlboot, nor perlbot mention any CPAN modules at all, and perltoot cites a couple but Moose isn't among them.
    - chromatic 16y ago
      I'm mystified how noobs are to discover and convince themselves that "man perlobj" is now bad advice yet remains official. Me too, which is one reason I'd like to remove it, or at least fix it.
      - berntb 16y ago
        The Perl 5 world seems to change quite a lot every few years. If people have an old install, perldoc might be out of date. Wouldn't it be better to just add an URL at the top of the page to a page at perl.org and put the best practices for CPAN there?
- phaylon 16y ago
  I use Moose combined with non Moose OO libraries all the time and only run into troubles when they are doing some really funky stuff on the inside (The Glib wrappers were hard to tackle, but they have to be funky, since they're a C OO to Perl interface). Most of this is thanks to MooseX-NonMoose which takes care of most common things.
- chromatic 16y ago
  > As I understand it, the story on interop between the two styles is "don't go there". Interop between Moose and legacy Perl 5 OO works just fine.
jlees 16y ago
Good to know. Should I ever feel masochistic enough to look back at Perl, I'll undoubtedly check it out. And this reply alone is proof Perl isn't dead.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]