Re^16: OO automatic accessor generation

in reply to Re^15: OO automatic accessor generation
in thread OO automatic accessor generation

Thanks taking the time to write such a long and thoughtful reply. I still disagree with you, but now I understand much better why I disagree with you. :D

It seems mainly to be the difference between people like me who want to learn "bottom-up" and have an understanding all the way down to the metal, vs folks who prefer to learn "top-down" and want to focus on OO theory first then work down to its applications in Perl (e.g. via Moose), without ever wanting to go much lower than that.

Of course, both world views are reasonable and useful and maybe they just reflect the differences between us old-timers with an engineering background vs those folks with a more mathematical approach.

I can see your point about Conway's book from the "theory" point of view. I just disagree with your assessment of the irrelevance of the "esoterica" in the last third of the book. But it's easy to forget that not everyone sees (or assesses) the world the same as I do and it's good to be reminded of that. So thanks.

Comment on Re^16: OO automatic accessor generation

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^17: OO automatic accessor generation by perigrin (Sexton) on Nov 20, 2009 at 03:05 UTC
Holy crap, we just had a useful and cordial conversation on a Web Forum. No less we end both appreciating the other's view point but respectfully disagreeing with them. We're so gonna get kicked off Perl Monks for this. More seriously, yes I'm much more of a Theory oriented person. I like knowing the grand unifying principles and I find that the details of Perl deals with OO are messy and inconsistent when you get based the very very broad strokes that in Perl an Object is just a blessed reference to a data-structure. I can however fully appreciate that for some people understanding the mechanics of how Perl puts things together is more important to their grasping of the whole kit and caboodle than the abstract principles. I'm glad that we can at least come to agreement on the fact that we're different, and thus have different needs and expectations out of the tools we use (be it Perl, Moose, or Damian's book).	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^17: OO automatic accessor generation
by perigrin (Sexton) on Nov 20, 2009 at 03:05 UTC

Holy crap, we just had a useful and cordial conversation on a Web Forum. No less we end both appreciating the other's view point but respectfully disagreeing with them. We're so gonna get kicked off Perl Monks for this.

More seriously, yes I'm much more of a Theory oriented person. I like knowing the grand unifying principles and I find that the details of Perl deals with OO are messy and inconsistent when you get based the very very broad strokes that in Perl an Object is just a blessed reference to a data-structure.

I can however fully appreciate that for some people understanding the mechanics of *how* Perl puts things together is more important to their grasping of the whole kit and caboodle than the abstract principles. I'm glad that we can at least come to agreement on the fact that we're different, and thus have different needs and expectations out of the tools we use (be it Perl, Moose, or Damian's book).

[reply]

In Section Meditations