Semantically, you are right.
But, that is not the issue Ovid raised in Recap: The Future of Perl 5.
In his proposal, Ovid seeks to reduce the number of required steps and simplify the syntax in Perl 5's OO system.
As to why I said Python's OO system seems to have changed since Larry stole from it, see the Python 3 example:
class Dog:
# Class Attribute
species = 'mammal'
# Initializer / Instance Attributes
def __init__(self, name, age):
self.name = name
self.age = age
# Instantiate the Dog object
philo = Dog("Philo", 5)
__init__ is called with an already "blessed" ref to an already allocated container. __init__ only sets values to the objects's fields.
The 1-to-1 translation to Perl would be (using signatures to reduce "noise"):
package Dog;
our $species = 'mammal';
sub __init__ ($class, $name, $age)
{
my $self = {};
$self->{name} = $name;
$self->{age} = $age;
bless $self, $class;
}
package main;
my $philo = Dog->__init__('Philo', 5);
Even if we make __init__ more Perl-ish (still using signatures):
sub __init__ ($class, $name, $age)
{
my $self = bless {name => $name, age => $age}, $class;
}
Ovid would still point out that Perl is requiring the programmer to perform 2 extra steps: Allocate the container and create a blessed reference to the container.
I don't know which version of Python Larry stole the OO system from, so I don't know what Larry changed. But, at least to me, Perl 5's classes look more like Smalltalk classes than Python 3 classes.
|