Is Moose just a fad? Will it go the way of so many cool ideas in programming?
The answer to this question is important, because if it is a fad, I don't really want to create a dependency on it.
It's object introspection is extremely good, though.
Re: Is Moose a fad?
grep on 2009-01-25T19:01:14
Try it.
I think you will find that it's a lot of what you've been looking for in a Perl object system. Then realize that a lot of people will be thinking the same as you. That will answer your question.
If you feel it could/will work long term (which I do) then there is a good shot many other will also. If you don't like it then at least you know you don't like it and who cares if lots of others do.
Not a fad (IMO at least)
Stevan on 2009-01-25T21:38:50
In the end it is your choice if you want to depend on Moose or not, however as to the question of if Moose is a fad, I can only give you some facts and you can decide for yourself.
- Moose has been around and actively developed for almost 3 years now (March 15th 2006 was version 0.01), a quick scan of the Changes file will show you that it has been a very active couple of years too.
- Moose has 4 official core developers (myself, Yuval Kogman, Dave Rolsky and Shawn Moore) and a quick look at the AUTHOR section of the POD shows that we have a pretty good sized contributor base.
- The number of modules on CPAN that depend on Moose has been steadily growing and is right now up to 325 modules.
- The #moose@irc.perl.org channel has is very active and has over 100 people in it at any given time.
- The mailing list is less active, but is growing (about 413 messages so far).
- ... and lastly, it is currently being used by a whole bunch of people/companies in production for real world applications. And I think it is safe to say that those people all now have an vested interest in seeing Moose stick around.
- Stevan
It's too soon to tell...
Alias on 2009-01-26T05:30:54
Moose has hung on longer than the Inside-Out Objects fad, but not long enough to hit 0.65 or be "done", they're still trying to plug some performance gaps and come up with something that's useful in all cases.
If Moose can meet the performance needs of all operating environments, I think it will stick. If it continues to be something that you have to avoid under certain situations, then it becomes of a nice-to-have that's only usable in some environments... which takes it somewhat into fad territory.
But they're working on the issues... we'll see...
Your are trying to predict the future ... don't
systems on 2009-01-26T07:37:18
Well, if it works for you today, use.
If it stops working for you in the future, don't use.
If everyone worried so much about what CPAN library will still be in active development 5 years from now, now one would be moving forward and we will all stand still.
You need to be a fast learner and dynamic, learn new things as they come.
I know that you are thiking that what ever you are building now, you would still need to extend year from now, but think about it this way.
Which will live longer, your code or Moose?
Isn't possible that 5 years from you would be rewriting your application is say Perl 6.2!
Anyway, don't look too far into the future, definitely don't try to predict it.
No worries
sjn on 2009-01-26T09:47:28
The best way to predict the future is to get commit rights to it. ;-)
- Check out Moose. Use it, see if it fits your mindset or if you can learn to appreciate it in some other way.
- When you've familiarized yourself enough, try to make your own technical evaluation of Moose - both the code, the APIs and the community. If it's good enough for you, then that should be enough.
- When you have decided to go with Moose or abandon it, make sure you do it wholeheartedly. If you're in, use some time to tend the community. Your participation helps make the community better, and thusly increases it's likelyhood for lasting and improving. If Moose isn't your cup of tea, just go quietly.
At least the hype about Moose is of the grassroots kind. :)
I don't think it's a fad
jjn1056 on 2009-01-26T16:03:18
Moose has a large and constantly growing user base, as well as an expanding developer base. The project has a fantastic ability to incorporate new developers and to execute on a consistent release schedule. More and more important Perl projects are porting their codebase to Moose or incorporating Moose on a case by case basis. More modules on CPAN are choosing to use Moose. All these are positive indicators, I don't see any slowing of the momentum.
The only arguments I hear against Moose have nothing to do with whether or not it's an improvement over core Perl OO (It clearly is). Rather, I hear concerns about speed and the size of the dependency. For me, neither are an issue since I've never had trouble getting Moose installed and I am definitely one to complain when something is hard to download from CPAN. Speedwise I can understand why some people writing non persistent applications, such as CGI or commandline stuff, might complain, which is why they can try Mouse (a lighter weight version of Moose which can grow to use Moose should you discover you need the power). For me, I'd rather write an application that can scale in complexity, have the ability to incorporate new developers easily while remaining rooted in software development best practices.
Wordnet says...
"An interest followed with exaggerated zeal," so the answer is "yes." It may or may not be worth using, but it is definitely a fad.
wrong question
It's not important whether it is a fad or not, but whether it does what you need (or will do by the time you need it.)
If it is done enough to serve your needs, that settles it.
If it's not done enough and you're worried about the investment of learning vs its done-ness, well... the developers are still keeping the development very much alive and I wouldn't bet on it going stagnant.
