3 ms·

Is perl5i really a good practice? I got a "PHP API" vibe when watching a talk about it and immediately wrote it off. Am I wrong?

by smosher 15y ago

sigzero 15y ago
Yes but you have to form you own opinion. Try it and see.
chromatic 15y ago
perl5i performs the valuable services of integrating several useful but disparate extensions into a single working whole, which helps to identify missing features and to encourage collaboration. It's also much easier to install and to enable. I see it as an experiment as to where Perl 5 could be. Even though I might not use it outside of personal projects, it's still useful.
- smosher 15y ago
  I think it's lost on me because a lot of these simple problems it allows you to solve with simple code are also equally specific problems. (In a "how many times have you written this routine?" sense, my answer is almost always "once" or "never.") I haven't seen a really good example without a better solution so I've got that "use Kitchen::SinkToo;" feeling. That's not a bad idea for personal projects if it does save you time. Otherwise I'm not so sure. Experimenting is good though.
jrockway 15y ago
It's nothing like PHP, but I still find it to be a bit too much. strict and warnings? Yes. "use feature ':5.12'"? Yes. A metaobject system incompatible with Moose? No thanks. Autoboxing all references? No thanks. I wrote a pragma called "no nonsense" that is a little saner: http://search.cpan.org/~jrockway/nonsense-0.01/lib/nonsense.pm http://search.cpan.org/~jrockway/nonsense-0.01/lib/nonsense.... You say "no nonsense" at the top of the lexical scope, then you get strict and warnings, the true value required at the end of the module is automatically added, and any non-method subroutines you import are made un-callable as methods. That's it. (I personally don't use this, because it's a little too cute. I don't mind saying "use Moose; use true; use namespace::autoclean;" at the top of my classes.)

Is perl5i really a good practice? I got a "PHP API" vibe when watching a talk about it and immediately wrote it off. Am I wrong?

by smosher 15y ago

Is perl5i really a good practice? I got a "PHP API" vibe when watching a talk about it and immediately wrote it off. Am I wrong?

sigzero 15y ago

Yes but you have to form you own opinion. Try it and see.

chromatic 15y ago

perl5i performs the valuable services of integrating several useful but disparate extensions into a single working whole, which helps to identify missing features and to encourage collaboration. It's also much easier to install and to enable. I see it as an experiment as to where Perl 5 could be. Even though I might not use it outside of personal projects, it's still useful.

smosher 15y ago
I think it's lost on me because a lot of these simple problems it allows you to solve with simple code are also equally specific problems. (In a "how many times have you written this routine?" sense, my answer is almost always "once" or "never.") I haven't seen a really good example without a better solution so I've got that "use Kitchen::SinkToo;" feeling. That's not a bad idea for personal projects if it does save you time. Otherwise I'm not so sure. Experimenting is good though.

jrockway 15y ago

It's nothing like PHP, but I still find it to be a bit too much. strict and warnings? Yes. "use feature ':5.12'"? Yes. A metaobject system incompatible with Moose? No thanks. Autoboxing all references? No thanks. I wrote a pragma called "no nonsense" that is a little saner: http://search.cpan.org/~jrockway/nonsense-0.01/lib/nonsense.pm http://search.cpan.org/~jrockway/nonsense-0.01/lib/nonsense.... You say "no nonsense" at the top of the lexical scope, then you get strict and warnings, the true value required at the end of the module is automatically added, and any non-method subroutines you import are made un-callable as methods. That's it. (I personally don't use this, because it's a little too cute. I don't mind saying "use Moose; use true; use namespace::autoclean;" at the top of my classes.)