paul.seamons
Recent Actions
-
Commented on Is the pro/con "Modern Perl" divide a symptom of Steve Yegge's "software political axis"?
As another data point. I personally do not use Moose or other accessor generators or fields pragma or pseudo hashes. I personally do not use ORMs but I believe very much in a rigorous relational schema definition and love DBI...
-
Commented on Pre-Modern Perl VS Post-Modern Perl: FIGHT!
@confuseAcat Civility is more about tone than it is about disagreement. Disagreeing may or may not be civil purely based on tone. Your tone is decidedly not civil....
-
Commented on Pre-Modern Perl VS Post-Modern Perl: FIGHT!
@Gabor - thank you for chiming in. For myself, the bits that rile me up (though they shouldn't) are exactly the insinuations that if I don't use Moose then I must dislike change or I am not an early adopter...
-
Commented on I love pre-modern Perl and so should you, my introduction
I would like to cast my vote in favor of what David Shultz is saying. I have not seen any modern perl enabling module actually solve a problem I was having. I am not completely opposed to Moo. However, if...
Comment Threads
-
David Shultz commented on
Is the pro/con "Modern Perl" divide a symptom of Steve Yegge's "software political axis"?
Here here, they should know about Moo(se), and they should also know about other options. I think part of the issue here is that when myself and others stated they didn't like Moo(se) we were told that either we were mistaken and should look again, or to please be quiet about it so as not to send newbies in the wrong direction. There is no wrong way to do something, that is a long standing very public opinion about Perl.
-
Perrin Harkins commented on
Is the pro/con "Modern Perl" divide a symptom of Steve Yegge's "software political axis"?
Interesting point. I'm not really in agreement about the dependencies being such a problem, but I see how trusting other people's code (in the form of frameworks) could be seen as accepting more risk. The difference between trusting widely used frameworks and trusting the CORE modules seems a little arbitrary to me though.
-
Perrin Harkins commented on
Is the pro/con "Modern Perl" divide a symptom of Steve Yegge's "software political axis"?
Yes, Modern Perl is a poor description of what the argument has been about. Most of the stuff in your Modern Perl book is totally uncontroversial at this point.
-
shaun.griffith.1964 commented on
Is the pro/con "Modern Perl" divide a symptom of Steve Yegge's "software political axis"?
"With this framing, embracing Modern Perl is indicative of a lower risk-tolerance and a desire for more safety in software development, while objecting to it shows a willingness to accept more risk in exchange for lower overhead."
Do you have that backwards? Objectors to Modern Perl want the Devil They Know, while embracers prefer to try something else. More like conservatives vs. liberals. Both may think they are going down the low risk path, but have different risk profiles. A safe approach for one is not a safe approach for the other.
-
Perrin Harkins commented on
Is the pro/con "Modern Perl" divide a symptom of Steve Yegge's "software political axis"?
True, you could read it that way. Avoiding change is a way of avoiding risk. However, the change in this case is all about increasing safety in software terms. Some people would view it as giving up some liberty in exchange for more safety, and how you feel about that depends on how unsafe things look to you without it.
This may just mean that the analogy doesn't fit the situation though.
About blogs.perl.org
blogs.perl.org is a common blogging platform for the Perl community. Written in Perl with a graphic design donated by Six Apart, Ltd.