[aklug] Re: Perl 5 OOP

Quoting "Joshua J. Kugler" <joshua@eeinternet.com>:

> On Wednesday 06 January 2010, Christopher Howard elucidated thus:
>> Perl 5 OOP sucks. Even with Moose.
>>
>> I guess I've been pampered lately, working mostly with C++ and Java.
>> Actually, Java has pretty cool feature which I just found out about
>> recently (being a Java n00b) called interfaces, where you can
>> actually define an interface (a sort of completely abstract class)
>> and just attach it to any class you want, independent of the
>> inheritance hierarchy.
>>
>> Anyway, right now I'm working with Perl because of a cool Perl
>> module, but I have to switch my code over to OOP, and even the Moose
>> interface seems awkward.
>>
>> I guess Perl 6 is supposed to improve that, but as Perl 6 doesn't
>> even seem to be in the Gentoo repositories yet, I'm probably not
>> going to play around with it.
>
> Back when I programmed in Perl, I avoided classes and OOP because they
> were so painful. Then I started using a language where
> classes/objects/OOP was there from the beginning (Python) and it was a
> beautiful, wonderful experience. In my first month or two with Python,
> I had written more classes than I had in my entire previous 8+ with
> Perl. I've never used Moose, so can't comment there, but I know that
> OOP in Perl is often referred to as a "bolt-on" vs. the "built in" that
> you'll see in Python, Java, etc.
>

Just wanted to fix the last line above......"bolt-on" vs. the "built =20
in" that you'll see in Python, Java, Ruby, etc.

I know that you weren't trying to slight Ruby, but I think it can be =20
considered mainstream at this point.

Mike B.

----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

---------
To unsubscribe, send email to <aklug-request@aklug.org>
with 'unsubscribe' in the message body.
Received on Wed Jan 6 15:48:26 2010