(Randal L. Schwartz) writes:
>>>>> "Rainer" == Rainer Weikusat <> writes:
>
> Rainer> Removing possibly useful documentation texts because they contain
> Rainer> 'politically unwelcome information' in order to help with forcing
> Rainer> people to download $random_non_perl_oo_crap from CPAN even for really
> Rainer> basic problems is a tacit admission that said $random_non_perl_oo_crap
> Rainer> failed to supplant the actually very nice Perl OO system based on its
> Rainer> technical merits.
>
> /me holds up secret decoder ring
>
> Nothing.
>
> /me pushes message through "content vs useless pointless rant" filter
>
> Aha. Pointless rant. Nobody knows *what* you're talking about.
,----
| New Documentation
|
| [...]
|
| perlootut
|
| This a new OO tutorial. It focuses on basic OO concepts, and then
| recommends that readers choose an OO framework from CPAN.
|
| [...]
|
| Removed Documentation
| Old OO Documentation
|
| The old OO tutorials, perltoot, perltooc, and perlboot, have been
| removed.
`----
http://perldoc.perl.org/perldelta.html
I especially like statements like the following:
As we said before, Perl's minimal OO system has led to a
profusion of OO systems on CPAN. While you can still drop down
to the bare metal and write your classes by hand, there's
really no reason to do that with modern Perl.
http://perldoc.perl.org/perlootut.html#CONCLUSION
I can immediately provide such a 'good reason': Obviously, according
to the opinions of the one bazillion people who wasted there spare
time on implementing YARFPOO (yet another replacement for Perl OO) all
other RFPOOs have serious drawbacks and in this case, I'd vote for the
built-in mechanism because it is the built-in mechanism. I have enough
deficient third-party written code I need to maintain already ...
Similar Threads
