that damage bringed into community by perl6 in its current state is huge and continuing.

This is nonsense and I’m tired of seeing it here without the slightest supporting logic or evidence.

Perl5 was zooming up to a dead end 15 years ago; there was a ton of infighting, apathy, unwillingness to look outside, big gaps between releases, and attitude of if you won’t do it my way I’m taking my commit bit and going home. Perl6 shook that up, broke things loose, and got a lot of new persons interested in Perl5 and moving it forward. The Perl5 renaissance that began c 2004 might have never happened without the Perl6 efforts. Moose, MOP, Moo, Mouse, and the advances that have arguably made Perl5 a superior OO language to Python and Ruby and Java only came in because of Perl6 discussions and dreams.

Moose, MOP, Moo, Mouse, and the advances that have arguably made Perl5 a superior OO language to Python and Ruby and Java

I'd like to see that argument!

I'm not against it; I'd just like to see:

1. the benefits of Moose/Mop/et al. laid out;
2. a comparison with the OO in those other languages.

My perception of Moose is that it is an expensive getter/setter generator. My perception of MOP is that is provides for introspection -- that has few if any legitimate uses.

I'd like to be persuaded that I'm wrong.

---

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.

Up front: I am not the right one for the job; I am largely recycling things I’ve read and heard. My experience domain in OO in other languages is sparse. So, I’ll rely on an expert!

I'd say the Moose OO model is far more powerful and useful than Python's. Roles, method modifiers, lazy builders, delegation and coercion are all really good for reducing repetitive code and improving OO design. With enough work most of that can be emulated in Python, but Moose gives it to you straight out of the box. –Re: Python OO v Moose

Perl supports a vast ground of different techniques and does not hinder from crossbreeding or intermixing. Types + coercion for example, only hinted in the quote, can be bondage oriented or loose and accommodating or anything in between. You can write Perl that does what Java does in the way it does it (though private methods and such are less fun, you know they can be done in at least a couple ways; anonymous/lexical code and inside-out). You can’t do the reverse. Every personal sweet spot in between is possible in Perl. And though some languages—as I understand it, I’m *not* a xlang OO exert in the slightest—make some of the techniques easier and remove some of the bad behavior (like methods bumping into functions)… still Perl can do it.

Now to recycle another thing someone else said recently: The main problem with Perl isn’t Perl, it’s that while the CPAN is enormous, Perl at large is not grounded enough in complete, out of the box, applications. WordPress or Wikimedia would have been easy to write in Perl for example but the ethos of the Perl community, in my estimation, finds it more fun to work on gears than complete machines… I’ve thought a lot about this and I’ve never come to any conclusions; why, is it better, should, could it change? PHP only exists and flourished, in my view, not because Perl couldn’t do what it ended up being but because the Perl hackers of the day wouldn’t.

I ducked most of the real question, I know. It would be a good bit of work to address for someone who is an expert. It would be a three month research project for me. :P