Re: Moose Role Call

On Jan 24, 2008, at 7:50 a, Stevan Little wrote:

>
> On Jan 23, 2008, at 9:37 PM, Matt S Trout wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 06:47:53AM -0800, John Napiorkowski wrote:
>>> I thought we were calling it a post modern object
>>> system now?  Which for me brought on a panic attack,
>>> recalling my post modern literary criticism class from
>>> my grad school days.
>>
>> I call it "Meta object orientation and syntax entensions" :)
>>
>
> I call it "Most Orangutans Order Szhechuan Entrees" :)
>
> I understand they like the spicy stuff.
>
> Although to be (kinda) serious, the post-modern bit is because  
> really a "modern" OO system is something like Java or C#, which is  
> (at this point) rather boring and straight forward. Moose aims to  
> push past those languages, dragging along with it things from CLOS,  
> BETA, Smalltalk, Perl 6, etc. It builds upon the "modern" OO  
> systems, and looks for the next step, hence the "post".
>
> Also, Post-modern (at least in the fine-art world) tends to include  
> a lot of appropriation and recontextualization (see Pop-art, Neo- 
> Dadaism, the painting revival in the 80s, etc). Moose steals stuff  
> from many other languages (appropriation) and attempts to put it  
> into a perl-ish context (recontextualization), so in that sense  
> also I see it as post-modern.
>
> And lastly, post-modernism tends to be a lot more fun and less  
> stuffy then modernism :)

Also from a Lit Crit view point, post modernism has a lot to do with  
the power of the reader for informing half the value of the story.  
This is very literal in Moose with the deep introspection and ability  
to interact with and override the metaobject protocol. I could  
probably have a long digression about method modifiers (around/before/ 
after) being meta-narrative constructs which break the fourth-wall of  
programming by talking about the methods they are modifying ... but  
really that won't happen until Perl gets macros.

-chris