Re: Informal Poll: why aren't you using traits?

[Zaxo]

I get traits confused with attributes and roles ;-)

The three seem to do almost the same things, but differently. That suggests that they are not just experimental features, but instances of an experimental concept.

As such, I doubt if I will use them in production code any time soon. I'll surely try to follow their development. Perl 5 attributes are most accessible and useful to me, but only the builtin ones look anything like stable. And not even all of them.

[Ovid]

I think there's a misunderstanding here. Traits are completely unrelated to attributes. As for Perl 6 roles, they are the same thing with the exception that in Perl 5 implementations such as Class::Trait, they're assigned at compile time and not runtime.

As such, they are very well defined and far beyond the idea of "concept". As an experimental feature, they only remain such because people are not using them (well, I am and I've been quite happy with them. Your mileage may vary).

So far few seem to appreciate the benefits of traits and those who claim to not see the value also appear to not know what they are. They are not attributes, decorators, or anything like that. Still, there's nothing wrong with not knowing about them. They've only been seriously discussed for a couple of years.

[Zaxo]

I've seen traits in C++, but does the term represent the same notion? I dimly recall a discussion where they didn't appear to be the same.

[Ovid]

According to a brief mention of C++ traits here, they appear to be completely unrelated. In fact, following the URL mentioned there, I see that these traits are completely unrelated. I didn't know about them. Had I been aware, I would have made that clear in the root post. Sorry for the confusion.