6 ms·

I used to work with Perl 6 years. As much as I like it, going to Ruby was such a relief and joy! I never looked back. Perl is just way too @$%{}__ for me. And s

I used to work with Perl 6 years. As much as I like it, going to Ruby was such a relief and joy! I never looked back. Perl is just way too @$%{}__ for me. And some stuff, like OO really, really not only looks but also feels like a dirty hack put on top of something else.

berntb 13y ago
Ah, so you left the Perl world just before Moose -- and don't even know about it? :-)
- mdellabitta 13y ago
  That's a good explanation of me. I just took a quick look at the manual. The class definitions look seriously verbose. I guess with some coding templates or macros, it wouldn't be too bad, though.
  - berntb 13y ago
    Well, you have a ~ typing system for attributes, good roles, etc. And if you don't like the syntax, see e.g. http://search.cpan.org/~ether/MooseX-Method-Signatures-0.44/lib/MooseX/Method/Signatures.pm http://search.cpan.org/~ether/MooseX-Method-Signatures-0.44/... http://search.cpan.org/~flora/MooseX-Declare-0.35/lib/MooseX/Declare.pm http://search.cpan.org/~flora/MooseX-Declare-0.35/lib/MooseX... [Edit: I might add -- the OO system is mature and largely inspired by Common Lisp. It is better than the "competition" among the scripting languages (says the ones with heavier background in those environments than me).]
    - SimHacker 13y ago
      Well you should just use Common Lisp if you want an object system like Common Lisp's. It comes without all the baggage and duct tape of Perl.
      - berntb 13y ago
        I could be happy using either just a nice Lisp or Perl the rest of my life. (Perl do look more likely, since e.g. the last time I checked the Lisps I didn't even find good Unicode support, etc.) But you didn't expect a serious answer. You've written five(!) troll comments in this discussion -- as of now, total comments are 28. The last four trolls in 12 minutes. In short: You're a complete drag on HN signal-to-noise and give pathetic waste-of-air language war trolls a bad name. (All complex language environments have duct tape and baggage. And... ah, why feed the stinking trolls?)

berntb 13y ago

Ah, so you left the Perl world just before Moose -- and don't even know about it? :-)

mdellabitta 13y ago
That's a good explanation of me. I just took a quick look at the manual. The class definitions look seriously verbose. I guess with some coding templates or macros, it wouldn't be too bad, though.
- berntb 13y ago
  Well, you have a ~ typing system for attributes, good roles, etc. And if you don't like the syntax, see e.g. http://search.cpan.org/~ether/MooseX-Method-Signatures-0.44/lib/MooseX/Method/Signatures.pm http://search.cpan.org/~ether/MooseX-Method-Signatures-0.44/... http://search.cpan.org/~flora/MooseX-Declare-0.35/lib/MooseX/Declare.pm http://search.cpan.org/~flora/MooseX-Declare-0.35/lib/MooseX... [Edit: I might add -- the OO system is mature and largely inspired by Common Lisp. It is better than the "competition" among the scripting languages (says the ones with heavier background in those environments than me).]
  - SimHacker 13y ago
    Well you should just use Common Lisp if you want an object system like Common Lisp's. It comes without all the baggage and duct tape of Perl.
    - berntb 13y ago
      I could be happy using either just a nice Lisp or Perl the rest of my life. (Perl do look more likely, since e.g. the last time I checked the Lisps I didn't even find good Unicode support, etc.) But you didn't expect a serious answer. You've written five(!) troll comments in this discussion -- as of now, total comments are 28. The last four trolls in 12 minutes. In short: You're a complete drag on HN signal-to-noise and give pathetic waste-of-air language war trolls a bad name. (All complex language environments have duct tape and baggage. And... ah, why feed the stinking trolls?)