use Perl

• Thank You (Score:1)

  by perigrin (3495)

  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
  • Re: (Score:1)

    by Alias (5735)

    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
    • Re:Thank You (Score:1)

      by perigrin (3495) <chrisNO@SPAMprather.org> on 2007.11.04 22:40 (#58821) Homepage Journal

      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 [google.com] purposes.

      Second I think a case can be (and has [perl.org] been [perl.org]) 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 honest until I looked again just now I thought you *had* stomped on other people's project names because the names are so similar (for example Date::Tiny ... *especially* when Date::Tiny objects can inflate to DateTime objects ... tell me that isn't confusing?). But you are right they are not, I retract that spurious comment modulo my misgivings stated here.

      Finally I have to thank you because all of this has helped immensely with my understanding of the position of Moose relative to other things in the world. I now have benchmarks of Moose against a self-professed *fast* object builder (thank you again ... the benchmarks will be in the 0.0.3 aka "Bonfire Night" release), we lose horribly in object creation (about a 200% hit ... because of the MOP I'm sure) but don't fare too badly in accessor access (only about a 20% hit and we support method modifiers and several other decidedly non-tiny features). I also have a wonderful example of extending Moose that is small and focused. Last as someone pointed out, we got publicity. I honestly think that Moose::Tiny has added more than it ever could have to the Moose project as "just a joke module".

      Reply to This

      Parent