|
in reply to Re^3: Some thoughts on Moose Attributes
in thread Some thoughts on Moose Attributes
As you've probably worked out by now, I'm not, nor ever likely to be, a Moose user.
Holy Crap! Really!!! Now it all makes sense! ;)
But I'm not critical of Moose.
Kinda, sorta, not really. But that is okay, we can take it, nothing should ever be above criticism. Perl is built on the foundation of TIMTOWTDI, which means that the language itself is flexible and can very easily be different things for different people.
|
Re^5: Some thoughts on Moose Attributes
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on May 02, 2011 at 03:01 UTC
|
Kinda, sorta, not really.
Yes, really.
Some people swear by DBIx::Class &| Class::DBI. Others have fundamental issues with the entire concept of such tools. Both factions coexists and even cooperate.
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.
| [reply] |
|
|
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.
Never,... never ever, ... never ever, ever would I say that. I may not (or ever) agree with you on the specifics, but I appreciate fully your input. Keep on keepin' on brother!
That said, I do love messing with you. If ever you are at a YAPC::NA, PPW or OPW, all your beers are on me :)
Love and kisses,
| [reply] |
|
|
Re: "Why do I respond in threads regarding Moose. "
Don't forget too, that I learn more from heretics than from the brainwashed yes-men.
Re: "And I think that there is a lot of 'bad OO' around."
Back in the early '90,s when all the hype was on OO and the "paradigm shift", I suggested, just to be contrary, an article for Ed Yordon's "American Programmer" on "The Dark Side of OOP". He didn't take it as a joke, and asked me to submit the article.
| [reply] |
|
|
Don't forget too, that I learn more from heretics than from the brainwashed yes-men.
Equally, the heretic learns nothing from hanging out with his own kind.
an article ... on "The Dark Side of OOP"
That wouldn't be an article, nor even a series. It would take at least a book, and maybe a trilogy :)
Maybe "Revenge of the Luddi" would be a suitable title for part III.
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.
| [reply] |
|
|
|
|
