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

    • 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 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".