The Perl Foundation does fund grants for specific contributions to the Perl ecosystem. If you have a grant proposal visit https://www.perlfoundation.org/grants.html. A well planned and organized effort will usually achieve a better outcome.

Sure, thank you. Can I just send TPF $50 ear marked for going towards a laptop should such a bounty be established? I'm not good at writing grant propals or organizing these kind of things. But I do have $50 to give towards something like this that the community might find fun, exciting, and unifying.

Rather make it $5000, or find 100 others to join you via crowd-funding.

IIRC is most of the money donated to TPF earmarked.

I suppose the overhead to manage a micro-grant will outweigh the $50.

Cheers Rolf
_{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)
Wikisyntax for the Monastery}

I doubt you can find anything with support from higher levels than Cor.

Thank you. I assumed so. This was all inspired this after rewatching Ovid's TPPiTC talk; so my assumption is this would likely be the foundation of any real specification convention.

Cor, Zydeco, and Object::Pad each have a syntax somewhat like Qore.

Hi Toby,

I'm not sure if names like Zydeco or Kavorka help making your modules popular.

Unless you don't want them to be known... ;-)

Cheers Rolf
_{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)
Wikisyntax for the Monastery}

If you look at the most upvoted distributions on CPAN, you'll find a lot of them are "creatively" named, by which I mean they don't have names which describe their purpose. In the top ten, for example, there's "Mojolicious", "Moose", "Moo", and "Plack".

Kavorka has more upvotes than Method::Signatures::Simple and MooseX::Method::Signatures and almost as many as Method::Signatures.

Moops has more upvotes than MooseX::Declare, Object::Pad, Dios and any other similar module.

Zydeco is only a few months old, but I hope it will eventually replace both of those.

I do think that having a memorable one-component name can be a good marketing tool for a module.

toby döt ink

Thank you!

Note, the alternative to trying to achieve the One True OO^tm in Perl is the OOP Soup that we have and is currently growing. I am not opposed to this either and would offer the same sort of contribution to a reward to the person who wrote the 100th minimally functional OOP module on CPAN (or alternative, the person who wrote the most minimally functional alternatives approaches in a 6 mos period). TIMTOWTDI after all.

"If we can get something like this going at the highest levels"

"Perl inteligensia lock themselves in a dark, smokey room - not being allowed to leave until they generate a minimalfunperlish "spec" for OOP Perl."

Again have you run this past whoever it is you consider "inteligensia", or the perl core team?

"as simple as possible, but no simpler"

if something is as simple as it is possible to be, how could it be simpler?

That's a reference to a saying attributed to Einstein:

Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.

I reckon we are the only monastery ever to have a dungeon stuffed with 16,000 zombies.

Most Einsteins only said less than 10 percent of the quotations attributed to them...

Cheers Rolf
_{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)
Wikisyntax for the Monastery}

Arguably, we already have a minimal OO spec for Perl — the "classic" Perl 5 object system uses only two primitives: bless to associate a vtable (in the form of a package STASH) to a data reference, and the method call operator (variably written as $obj->$method(LIST) or method $obj LIST) that searches those vtables, implementing inheritance as "look here next if not found" semantics from the package variable @ISA in each package used as a vtable.

So I ask: how does the "classic" Perl 5 object system not meet your criteria?

(Yes, the arrow operator accepts a scalar naming the method to call.)

> (Yes, the arrow operator accepts a scalar naming the method to call.)

Only half the truth, if $method is a code-ref it'll be called like a method (i.e. with $obj as first argument)

Sorry for nitpicking :)

Cheers Rolf
_{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)
Wikisyntax for the Monastery}

No real nitpick — I learned something new: the arrow operator also accepts a scalar containing a code reference.

That's a good question. I'm not the one with the itch this won't scratch. Maybe that's the problem. People don't know what they want. The most I ever learned about Perl was when I decided to tackle OOP many moons ago. It pulls in a large number of existing, very powerful features that worked beautifully together. As a result, I not only learned how to put them together, I had those constituent parts at my disposal as well (closures over subs for RO, e.g.). If more people took the time to learn the MEAT, they wouldn't be asking for the sugar. Let's bring classic oop back. Surely Damian would like to sell some more books circa 2000. It's all I ever needed.

deal. Your move.