Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
good chemistry is complicated,
and a little bit messy -LW

Re: Re: Foo is not a Bar, why?

by hardburn (Abbot)
on Dec 18, 2003 at 21:51 UTC ( #315671=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

in reply to Re: Foo is not a Bar, why?
in thread Foo is not a Bar, why?

The fact that inheirtance is done at all through a package variable is where the bolted-on part comes in. Perl just does too much OO stuff at runtime, which ends up being a very good Perl system but not a great OO system.

I wanted to explore how Perl's closures can be manipulated, and ended up creating an object system by accident.
-- Schemer

: () { :|:& };:

Note: All code is untested, unless otherwise stated

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re: Foo is not a Bar, why?
by chromatic (Archbishop) on Dec 18, 2003 at 22:36 UTC

    Would you consider Smalltalk a "not great OO system"? It does even more at runtime.

    Also, if Perl 5 introduced both packages and objects, how could objects be "bolted on"? Packages exist, in part, to make objects possible, without requiring OO coding!

Re: Foo is not a Bar, why?
by Abigail-II (Bishop) on Dec 18, 2003 at 22:35 UTC
    You will never hear me saying Perl's OO system is anywhere near half decent. But the problem pointed out by liz isn't an OO specific problem - it can happen with non-OO code as well.


Log In?

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://315671]
and all is quiet...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others lurking in the Monastery: (1)
As of 2018-05-23 01:48 GMT
Find Nodes?
    Voting Booth?