Re: Re: Re: Will role-based programming be part of the standard Perl 6 distribution?

[scrottie]

chromatic, form your own assessment and espouse its relative virtues. This is the formula:

1. Take something that needs to be said. "You're wrong!" or "You missed a some nit!" aren't things that need be said. The impact on the world is negligable.

2. Explain it. Paint a picture of what, why, and how. Why is it good? What do people need to know? What tricks are there? What pitfalls?

3. When other people do this, don't pretend that their argument is propped up on one leg and try to kick the leg out when it isn't. Specifically, if there are flaws in their logic that lead to a faulty conclusion, it may or may not be worth pointing that out. If their premise is wrong, same. Attacking one point as if it to invalidate everything said is naive and misleading to readers. In this case, my post was a survey of issues. Though you question one of my premises, it is not a critical one - in fact, it was an issue I wanted readers to make up their own minds about. You've only managed to state something that should be obvious.

4. As long as we're talking about elemetary formal logic, if one thing can't be proved (it was never said that traits are mixins for certain, though it was implied by Piers atleast, therefore there is no confession) that doesn't automatically make the opposite true. Truth and provability are seperate things. The modest writer will post opinions as opinions, not as an interpretation of anothers words, and not as something infinately defensible. I've tried to follow in the modest writers footsteps. Again, the reader should find their own truth - this is only evidence and opinion, some mine, some popular. The reader that limits themselves to what is provable does nothing but this sort of political nitpicking. You're asking me to take issue with a source - the traits document (which ghostview/ghostscript renders flawlessly). I'd ask you to do the same - I've summerized popular opinion on the topic and made a classification that is correct according to an outsiders view of perl. Your turn - go read "Object Oriented Design Hueristics". And don't cop that "I graduated from college, I know everything there is to know about OO" attitude. I hate that. C++ programmers used to do that before the designpatterns/refactoring revoluation. Now everyone studiously improves their skills without boast or complain after college - except Perl programmers and other script kiddies.

5. Get a life. I don't mean to single you out, chromatic - I'm addressing everyone that mindlessly replies to posts. Do you have the same attitude in real life, walking around, trying to push everything over just to see if maybe it will fall, or to make people think that maybe it will fall? If you only want to chime in as agreeing or disagreeing, upvote or downvote.

I hate this sort of henclucking. Since I haven't formally renounced it yet, I thought I would do so once, just so that I'm on record. So, anytime that you reply to a post of mine in the future and I fail to resond in a never-ending contest of one-upmanship, do me a favor, and just assume that the lack of reply means "I've said what I have to say, and I don't like how you work". Now, in the past, other poeple have pointed out things that were useful and interseting - not just to me, but to anyone reading - and to those people - you know who you are - I'm grateful.

-scott

Addendum: PS - okey, maybe I don't like you for other reasons, haven't had my coffee, am just bitter because no one uses typesafety.pm and am probably wrong. I'll take a more careful look - if they do infact allow delegation I'll be seriously impressed. Still, I really really need the negitive exp - I'm starting to itch past level 4 and there are too many exp whores here. Whores! Whores!

[chromatic]

I'm sorry you're offended, but as far as I understand your argument, it's that:

• Perl programmers don't understand good OO programming.
• Perl 6 won't improve this.
• Perl 6 is adding roles for some reason.
• Roles complicate inheritance.
• Roles don't solve the real problem.
• Perl is doomed because Perl users are willfully ignorant.

I don't really care to argue whether I understand OO, because that's pointless. I don't particularly agree that Perl is doomed. I'm not thrilled when you imply that my head is "up my arse". It's not really worth replying to those points, though.

I do care that you seem to be confusing roles with inheritance, because the point of roles is to escape the oft-broken fascination with inheritance that seems to plague the popular object systems these days. That's why I've been arguing for them in Perl 6.

Again, I'm sorry if you're offended by me saying "Your conclusion seems wrong because your supporting argument is wrong." But what do you expect when your arguments are both insulting and wrong? If you wander around punching people, some of them are going to react.