Hacker News Reader

Comment by mst | Hacker News Reader

Right, but when there's more than one syntax to use to get that behaviour, he invariably picks the c.2001 preference rather than what we've done since.

It's like if somebody started their ruby tutorial off with how to implement your own object system with method_missing.

Sure, it fits the 'actual semantics', but it's not what we really want people to see first :)

View on HN

I'd actually enjoy that :) However, I first really understood objects from learning how to create them from closures in Scheme. And I'm not sure how many object systems built from array reference hacks in Tcl I've looked at.

But probably not what most people are probably looking for when they are first trying to understand something like Perl or Ruby.

Actually (and sadly) for some jobs with Perl that involve codebases older than 2007. That material would be useful. Because, like the languages you mention, deriving object systems from Perl5's rough axioms, was at one point something of a hobby for people.

Over the course of the article, I tried to show as many different ways of doing something as possible, without assigning judgment as to the "right" way to do something.

If you point out instances where I only documented the old syntax, let me know, and I'll add newer examples as well.

The point is that in every single topic you touch where there is a more modern way to do it, if you mention that modern way, you do it as an aside; instead of first showing the modern way of doing it, and then mentioning as an aside that there is an insane way of doing it.

Wow. Author asks for bug reports ... you explain it's all buggy and don't provide a single example.

For your sins, I'm going to see if I can convince the author to get it into a repository and then I'm going to give you a commit bit ... :D

Reply on news.ycombinator.com