Johan Vromans <jvrom...@squirrel.nl> writes: > Actually, the added benefits from the Moose layer escapes me. Looking at > the (only) test script the only advantage seems to be to be able to call > the constructor with named arguments.
I like to Mooseify my code. It's a choice. Code is clean and coherent. I used to do traditional wxPerl with mixing Moose coding before but often got messed up with how to call constructors etc. I agree you can do without it (I did), but hence then you might just think to use old-style OO Perl programming instead of using Moose at all. Since Moose needs to be loaded for my other code, the extra layer doesn't hurt performance in a perceptible way. For me, Moose is all about having a clean code in your app. Still, TIMTOWTDI ;) > Also, this would need to be extended to the several hundreds of > widgets... A tedious job. yep ;) > BTW, with my remark about modern wrappers I was pointing at a > replacement for the current wxPerl bindings, not an additional layer on > top of it. Well, that would be appreciated. But, as my code doesn't suffer in perceptible performance due to the extra layer, I don't put this high on a priority list. best -- erik
