# from Burak Gursoy
# on Thursday 19 June 2008 00:30:
>I think Moose is overkill for this type of thing but Andy++ for this
> thread, I've been looking for something like this for a while too :)
Not sure about the "overkill" perception.
Of course, I've been comfortably running Class::Accessor::Classy for a
while and have often thought of adding something like this to it -- at
which point something is probably overkill compared to coming back
up-to-speed on Moose.
But even with C::A::Classy, I've had troubles with perception. I just
got a project (which I originally architected) set in front of me for
the second time after the client's in-house guy decided that he didn't
understand C::A::Classy and opted to tear it out and replace it with a
beta in-house thing that doesn't really even try to have most of the
features of an object system - thereby loosing the read-only
distinctions, private mutators, immutable properties on some
attributes, etc - and switching all of the calling conventions to
require sprinkling extra curlies. The net difference in the code comes
from a lot of little details, but I could point to completely redundant
classes which exist solely because the lack of object system led to
their creation. I think that might be overkill.
So, the next programmer's perception is certainly important if it means
you'll get it back without the object system. I don't think that's an
argument against Moose -- I think it says that Moose needs more PR
(that is: Perception Replacement.)
Or you could try Mouse?
--Eric
--
"It ain't those parts of the Bible that I can't understand that
bother me, it's the parts that I do understand."
--Mark Twain
---------------------------------------------------
http://scratchcomputing.com
---------------------------------------------------
