[tpm] eval oddness

[Shaun Fryer]

well said stuart! I couldn't agree more! for someone with madison's level of
oop experience though, what I've said remains a good general rule of thumb.
at least it's far better than the multiple inheritance hell that alot of
folks run into otherwise...
--
Shaun Fryer

On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 4:58 PM, Stuart Watt <stuart at morungos.com> wrote:

> Inheritance is not completely intrinsic to OO - there are OO languages
> without inheritance (e.g., Self) and with limited concepts of inheritance
> (e.g., JavaScript). OO is really about being to build effective pieces of
> abstract behaviour. That is, you can hide internal implementation details,
> and still provide a service to others.
>
> I'd say it all depends on what your purpose is. If you are writing code to
> be used by others, rather than writing code to be extended by others, you
> typically end up with different structures. If you want your code to be
> extended by others, inheritance is kind of invaluable. Most frameworks for
> extension provide many classes you can extend. Catalyst is a great example.
> DBI is a good contrast: you rarely benefit from extending database access
> provision, so a well-defined interface is a better choice.
>
> Moose makes much of this a lot better, as it adds a few very helpful
> concepts, such as roles. Having used at least five different OO systems over
> the years, Moose is probably the one I've had most control over my
> application architecture with.
>
> Just a few thoughts,
>
> All the best
> Stuart
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.pm.org/pipermail/toronto-pm/attachments/20091210/bad1a1f2/attachment.html>