On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 11:40:26AM -0700, Jonathan Leto wrote:
> Jonathan forgot to attribute whoever wrote:
> > 1. Not every module you're using will be Moose-based, so if you're working
> > on one of those, you'll need to remember to switch back and forth. It's bad
> > enough having both (Perl's approximation of) OO and procedural calls.
> From what I know (hdp would know much better), Moose can interact just
> fine with non-Moose modules. For instance, check out MooseX::NonMoose
He didn't say anything about interactions between Moose and normal code.
His concern seemed to be about switching between the two "paradigms" in
your head. eg, remembering where to use Moose roles and where to use
normal inheritance.
> > 2. If we bring someone new onto the team we'd have to train them not just in
> > Perl, but in Moose as well.
> Huh? Moose is 50 times simpler
citation needed :-)
> to learn that Perl 5's hacktastic OO
> implementation. And they would have to write about 50 times less code.
citation needed :-)
Of course, the added complications and extra code of Moose also mean
that your code will run 50 times slower. For values of 50 that are
completely random.
> And hopefully you are hiring people that "can learn new things."
Sure. But it is obvious that the less one has to learn, the quicker one
will be productive. Learning perl plus moose will take longer than just
learning perl. If you already know perl, then learning moose plus the
employer's own code will take longer than learning just the employer's
codebase.
--
David Cantrell | Reality Engineer, Ministry of Information
There once was a tramp with "enable"
Whose router used proprietary cables.
When he got pissed on meths,
He thought "screw IOS",
"Let's apt-get install iptables"
