good chemistry is complicated,
and a little bit messy -LW
Kinda, sorta, not really.
That's how I see Moose. I have a problem with its conception, but I recognise that many people do not share that. I also recognise that of its type, it is absolutely the best of breed. I see the stability it has. I see the dedicated support you give it.
And for those that need or want (or simply don't yet know what they need or want in this regard), I heartily recommend Moose to them.
Why do I respond in threads regarding Moose.
In part, because I wish to understand what other people are getting from Moose.
But also, because Moose questions tend to relate directly to the fundamentals of object orientation itself.
It will probably surprise some when I say that I happen to think that OO is the single, most powerful concept to arise in programming. Ever. Full stop.
But I don't want it as a monoculture. And I think that there is a lot of 'bad OO' around. I also think that bad OO is (far) worse than bad procedural. And possibly, though I haven;t made up my mind, worse than bad functional. If I have an agenda, it is simply that I wish to express my thoughts on what makes some common OO practices good, and others bad. And to receive feedback and counter opinion so as to refine my opinion.
However, if you would rather that I stayed out of Moose threads and never mention the M-word again, then I will understand that and be gone.
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.