Slash Boxes
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • When I wrote Object::Tiny, I didn’t bother to write a comparison to Moose because I saw them as being in a completely different ballpark.

    One is a fully featured MOP implementation with all the goodies of the Perl 6 object model… and the other makes trivial accessors to save typing.

    I saw it as more of a compliment, because obviously we’re comparing apples and oranges here.

    So then Moose::Tiny shows and I of course assume it’s a joke by some random person unrelated to Moose itself.

    Well I’m not unrelated, I’ve worked on lots of pieces in the Moose world. But your assumption was right, it was a joke. Acme::* would have ruined that joke…

    A little annoyed that they are taking some liberties with the ::Tiny suffix, I write a review suggesting Acme::Moose::Tiny would be a better name.

    Well no more annoying that finding lots of ::Tiny stuff lying about in people’s packages that is purporting to be a smaller/faster/better solution to whatever problem they’re solving. Part of the joke is that Moose as a full MOP would loose a ton by trying to reduce it to the 80/20 rule that ::Tiny tries for. (That said mad props to sukiria for doing exactly that with Coat.).

    Much to my surprise, Moose supremo Steven Little turns up in defense of Moose::Tiny suggesting it is a “Hilarious social commentary on the absurd concept of second level namespace ownership”.

    On the one hand, I don’t see a problem with “ownership” (in a sense) of a suffix… there’s no difference in the level of protection available. I could easily walk all over DBI:: and there’s nothing in PAUSE to stop me.

    You’re a smart guy, I’m sure you could get away with murder too … but that doesn’t make it right.

    BUT, if the Moose people do indeed feel that they want to be included in a comparison, well fair enough.

    So, how does Moose::Tiny compare to Object::Tiny?


    Thank you, I will release a 0.02 release with the updated POD, and be sure to give you the proper credit. More patches welcome via RT or the standard Moose patching process.

    • lying about in people’s packages
      Sorry I meant "Namespaces" not packages.
    • Lying about in people's namespaces?

      Name one.

      So far I'm not aware of any modules that are doing that...

      Nobody "owns" Config:: or XML:: or even YAML::

      Occasionally people specifically ask that a namespace be kept clear for the exclusive benefit of that project, like DBI or PPI or (I assume) Moose.

      And neither I or any other ::Tiny authors have violated that (although I dearly want to release DateTime::Tiny).

      If Moose:: has indeed asked to remain clear, you are the only person that has violated a namespace in the
      • Well ... except first I didn't release until I had cleared it with Stevan first. Actually I asked him if I should release at all, and then again if he felt that it belonged in the Moose namespace. If he'd said no, or was unsure at any point I wouldn't have released ... MooseX::Tiny is no better than Acme::Moose::Tiny for parody [] purposes.

        Second I think a case can be (and has [] been []) made that there is disagreement on the merits of the Tiny naming scheme. Though in those cases I suppose it isn't the To be ho