We lose some error checking and ability to use it as role or put type checks or coercion (none of which I did either but some of it would be a one or two line addition) but I agree at this level. I’m not against plain old OOP and I’m not an OO fanatic.

Traits do bring a lot more power than push/pop (see Data::Perl::Role::Collection::Array or Moose::Meta::Attribute::Native::Trait::Array) and handles is a super convenient way to expose functionality of subobject or trait/attribute to the parent in semantically pleasing ways; for example a web spider object would have a user agent but it would be pleasant to have $spider->get instead of having to write $spider->user_agent->get. All still pretty trivial examples and ultimately all the MOP stuff is about shortcuts and sensible building blocks and techniques for distinguishing and mixing them for things that are just plain Perl underneath that anyone could do anyway. The bare bones mop that may come into the core in 5.24 or something is an example of how little agreement there is on which features are crucial and which are in the way.

We lose some error checking and ability to use it as role or put type checks or coercion (none of which I did either but some of it would be a one or two line addition)

Any errors will be checked when the underlying array operations are performed. And the messages will be concise and informative.

Unlike those that Moose produces!

for example a web spider object would have a user agent but it would be pleasant to have $spider->get instead of having to write $spider->user_agent->get

But, that can be done in one line with no modules:

package Spider;
...
*get = *{ $self->ua->get };
...
[download]

The bare bones mop that may come into the core in 5.24 or something is an example of how little agreement there is on which features are crucial and which are in the way.

Oh Dog! If Perl core starts coming with a MOP; then I sure hope that they also provide a compile-time -DBukIt to throw it away.

I mean, what good is a MOP without a BukIt :)

---

With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'

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.

For error checking I meant your constructor can be called with incorrect/missing size or “bad” invocant and won’t complain then will complain “cryptically” and not from caller’s perspective on its methods (but only if warnings are on); e.g.: Argument "camel" isn't numeric in numeric eq (==) at Package line number…

Your counter examples are spot on and if stevan couldn’t convince you Moose is a good tool there is no way I ever could. :P The traits give you more flexibly and depending on the package add exactly one line of code. Whereas the aliasing you’re doing would add up to hundreds to achieve the same thing and would not be properly overridable/inheritable/mixable/requirable, Unstandardized and probably untested. Types doing any number of complicated checks and validation with just a line as well and one more to do something like upgrade "http://asfd.qwer" to isa(URI). My examples being mostly toy code is not making a terribly good case I know… :| Since the stuff is just Perl more just Perl can be shown to do the same-ish; we haven’t talked around/after/before either which is quite a bit harder in plain Perl, especially in a way that can be altered or overidden in consuming classes. Some of the strength is that Moo/Moose and friends come with docs, tests, community: consistency and support and extensibility; DRY too. I find it much easier to debug than YAOO system or series of inconsistent idioms executed by 5 different hackers on a code base, all with their own style and rationale.