use Perl

• Re: Is Moose a fad? (Score:1)

  by grep (3333)

  Try it.

  I think you will find that it's a lot of what you've been looking for in a Perl object system. Then realize that a lot of people will be thinking the same as you. That will answer your question.

  If you feel it could/will work long term (which I do) then there is a good shot many other will also. If you don't like it then at least you know you don't like it and who cares if lots of others do.
• Not a fad (IMO at least) (Score:1)

  by Stevan (6065)

  In the end it is your choice if you want to depend on Moose or not, however as to the question of if Moose is a fad, I can only give you some facts and you can decide for yourself.

  • Moose has been around and actively developed for almost 3 years now (March 15th 2006 was version 0.01), a quick scan of the Changes [perl.org] file will show you that it has been a very active couple of years too.
  • Moose has 4 official core developers (myself, Yuval Kogman, Dave Rolsky and Shawn Moore) and a quick look at the AUTHOR [cpan.org] section
• It's too soon to tell... (Score:1)

  by Alias (5735)

  Moose has hung on longer than the Inside-Out Objects fad, but not long enough to hit 0.65 or be "done", they're still trying to plug some performance gaps and come up with something that's useful in all cases.

  If Moose can meet the performance needs of all operating environments, I think it will stick. If it continues to be something that you have to avoid under certain situations, then it becomes of a nice-to-have that's only usable in some environments... which takes it somewhat into fad territory.

  But they
• Your are trying to predict the future ... don't (Score:1)

  by systems (5732)

  Well, if it works for you today, use. If it stops working for you in the future, don't use.
  
  If everyone worried so much about what CPAN library will still be in active development 5 years from now, now one would be moving forward and we will all stand still.
  
  You need to be a fast learner and dynamic, learn new things as they come.
  
  I know that you are thiking that what ever you are building now, you would still need to extend year from now, but think about it this way.
  
  Which will live longer, your co
• No worries (Score:1)

  by sjn (3626)

  The best way to predict the future is to get commit rights to it. ;-)

  1. Check out Moose. Use it, see if it fits your mindset or if you can learn to appreciate it in some other way.
  2. When you've familiarized yourself enough, try to make your own technical evaluation of Moose - both the code, the APIs and the community. If it's good enough for you, then that should be enough.
  3. When you have decided to go with Moose or abandon it, make sure you do it wholeheartedly. If you're in, use some time to tend the community.
• I don't think it's a fad (Score:1)

  by jjn1056 (1241)

  Moose has a large and constantly growing user base, as well as an expanding developer base. The project has a fantastic ability to incorporate new developers and to execute on a consistent release schedule. More and more important Perl projects are porting their codebase to Moose or incorporating Moose on a case by case basis. More modules on CPAN are choosing to use Moose. All these are positive indicators, I don't see any slowing of the momentum. The only arguments I hear against Moose have nothing t

  --
  Waiting on the Road to Eventually, I lost my Place On Line
• Wordnet says... (Score:1)

  by educated_foo (3106)

  "An interest followed with exaggerated zeal," so the answer is "yes." It may or may not be worth using, but it is definitely a fad.
• wrong question (Score:1)

  by Eric Wilhelm (6389)

  It's not important whether it is a fad or not, but whether it does what you need (or will do by the time you need it.)

  If it is done enough to serve your needs, that settles it.

  If it's not done enough and you're worried about the investment of learning vs its done-ness, well... the developers are still keeping the development very much alive and I wouldn't bet on it going stagnant.