>>You're running into a "good is the enemy of the great" issue here. Perl, as opposed to e.g. Java, has a tradition of being extensible; Moose is not the only

>>You're running into a "good is the enemy of the great" issue here. Perl, as opposed to e.g. Java, has a tradition of being extensible; Moose is not the only example. Common Lisp wasn't OO in the first silver book either. >>counter the oft claimed "CPAN has more libraries than any other language!". It's not true, though the libraries it has might be easier to find than some. Not what I wrote; I wrote "The Perl feature is that it is flexible. You'll get more library and language capabilities with CPAN than using anything else I know of." You needed to go to Lisp (which sadly isn't really commercial today) for flexibility -- and Java for libraries. (And as you note -- I'm willing to believe there is more open source for Java, but finding it...?) Re linguists -- you need to give exact examples of your claims for me to understand what you talk about. Compare with e.g. German, as you claimed there were some difference? Etc.