3 ms·

I'd say CLOS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Lisp_Object_System http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Lisp_Object_System) & Moose (http://moose.perl.org http

I'd say CLOS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Lisp_Object_System http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Lisp_Object_System) & Moose (http://moose.perl.org http://moose.perl.org) myself. However I do like Prototype based OO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prototype-oriented_programming http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prototype-oriented_programming) and especially its implementation in Io (http://www.iolanguage.com http://www.iolanguage.com)

billitch 15y ago
Well, CLOS may be state of the art in very fine designed,exhaustively redefinable, roll-your-own aspect oriented programming, and the most exhaustive object oriented paradigm for the most fluid pragmatic language ever. But I doubt you'll find useful sources for programming style searching for it. If you are implementing an object-oriented paradigm for your programming language, it's a very recommendable source to discover what can possibly be done with OOP.
- draegtun 15y ago
  But I doubt you'll find useful sources for programming style searching for it. How about AOP? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect-oriented_programming http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect-oriented_programming). I think both CLOS & Moose push you more towards this programming style.
GVRV 15y ago
As someone working with Moose recently (and not really loving the experience), can you elaborate why it made your cut?
- draegtun 15y ago
  For my Perl reasons: * Nicer to write than standard Perl OOP, ie. less boiler plate, quicker prototyping, covers bizarre corner cases, etc * Moose is pretty much de-factor OO framework for Perl now, ie. big community drives its development and usage. * Perl6 synergy, ie. Moose heavily inspired by Perl6. Makes it easier when I switch between writing perl5 & perl6 code. For reasons why I think Moose makes the cut: * Roles - ala Smalltalk traits. see http://search.cpan.org/dist/Moose/lib/Moose/Manual/Roles.pod http://search.cpan.org/dist/Moose/lib/Moose/Manual/Roles.pod * Types - See http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1558882 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1558882 (and also follow links back from it). * Method modifiers - See my AOP comment elsewhere

billitch 15y ago

Well, CLOS may be state of the art in very fine designed,exhaustively redefinable, roll-your-own aspect oriented programming, and the most exhaustive object oriented paradigm for the most fluid pragmatic language ever. But I doubt you'll find useful sources for programming style searching for it. If you are implementing an object-oriented paradigm for your programming language, it's a very recommendable source to discover what can possibly be done with OOP.

draegtun 15y ago
But I doubt you'll find useful sources for programming style searching for it. How about AOP? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect-oriented_programming http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect-oriented_programming). I think both CLOS & Moose push you more towards this programming style.

GVRV 15y ago

As someone working with Moose recently (and not really loving the experience), can you elaborate why it made your cut?

draegtun 15y ago
For my Perl reasons: * Nicer to write than standard Perl OOP, ie. less boiler plate, quicker prototyping, covers bizarre corner cases, etc * Moose is pretty much de-factor OO framework for Perl now, ie. big community drives its development and usage. * Perl6 synergy, ie. Moose heavily inspired by Perl6. Makes it easier when I switch between writing perl5 & perl6 code. For reasons why I think Moose makes the cut: * Roles - ala Smalltalk traits. see http://search.cpan.org/dist/Moose/lib/Moose/Manual/Roles.pod http://search.cpan.org/dist/Moose/lib/Moose/Manual/Roles.pod * Types - See http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1558882 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1558882 (and also follow links back from it). * Method modifiers - See my AOP comment elsewhere