Hacker News Reader

Yes, but Perl has better libraries for that now (e.g. Moose)

You can't have good OO "outside" your language. You can't duct tape some OO to a language and consider it done.

That's classic: PHP guy say, "we have objects in PHP5 so now it is Object Oriented". It's not. To say that language is Object Oriented because it has classes is like to say that language is Functional because it has functions.

So, Moose is a clever thing, but does it make every hash an object (I genuinely wonder)? Does it provide OO API for I/O? With exceptions? Does it make everything behave consistently? Because consistency seems to be the main reason that Perl did not become the final stop.

Because consistency seems to be the main reason that Perl did not become the final stop.

Everyone's using Smalltalk now? Consistency seems to be overrated; most of the popular languages these days seem to be multi-paradigmatic.

CLOS did a stellar job of adding OO to a non-OO language.

There are all kinds of opinions about this: http://steve-yegge.blogspot.ru/2006/04/lisp-is-not-acceptabl... Yes, it's wonderful that you have the band-aid — or maybe duct tape is a better analogy — certainly you miss them dearly when you're working in other languages. But you don't want to have to build your entire object system with duct tape.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com