Re: Proposal: Moose, the *modern* [not post-modern] Perl 5 Object System
On Monday 12 Apr 2010 12:20:11 Yuval Kogman wrote: On 11 April 2010 22:26, Stevan Little stevan.lit...@iinteractive.com wrote: That all said, if the word postmodern has negative or different connotations within a culture (in this case Israeli) then any translated materials should take that into account and perhaps look for a better word that means the same thing. Not really, it means the same thing here. Honestly the guy in the chatlog just seems like he's being paranoid and nitpicky. Then how do you explain the article in Hebrew I referred you to? Furthermore, back before I had started reading Larry Wall's Perl, the First Post-Modern Language I recall also having bad associations with the word post-Modern (though they were founded on a feeling rather than actually knowing what post- modern really meant.). I can attest that tzafrir_laptop ( see: http://tzafrir.org.il/ ) was not being paranoid or nitpicky and is a trustworthy person, despite some of his faults. Regards, Shlomi Fish -- - Shlomi Fish http://www.shlomifish.org/ Star Trek: We, the Living Dead - http://shlom.in/st-wtld Deletionists delete Wikipedia articles that they consider lame. Chuck Norris deletes deletionists whom he considers lame. Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply .
Re: Proposal: Moose, the *modern* [not post-modern] Perl 5 Object System
On 11 April 2010 22:26, Stevan Little stevan.lit...@iinteractive.com wrote: That all said, if the word postmodern has negative or different connotations within a culture (in this case Israeli) then any translated materials should take that into account and perhaps look for a better word that means the same thing. Not really, it means the same thing here. Honestly the guy in the chatlog just seems like he's being paranoid and nitpicky.
Re: Proposal: Moose, the *modern* [not post-modern] Perl 5 Object System
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Shlomi Fish shlo...@iglu.org.il wrote:
Hi all,
I hope I'm not going to start a flamewar or appear as too domineering (which I
know has been an ongoing problem with me) but I'd like to make the proposal in
the subject:
{{{
Let's start referring to Moose as the modern Perl 5 Object System instead of
the post-modern Perl 5 Object System.
}}}
The reason is that post-modern tends to have very bad connotations in art
and philosophy, outside the narrow context of Larry Wall's presentation Perl,
the first post-modern language, which even many Perl programmers are not
familiar with, and may give people who are first introduced to the topic the
wrong idea.
[citation needed]
When I was in University, admittedly a few years ago now, Post
Modernism and one of it's tools Deconstructionism was very much the
rage. In the years since I have left university I haven't seen these
bad connotations. Do you have references?
On the other hand saying that Moose is a *modern* Object System
will normally immediately give people the right idea.
I know that it's cute to call Moose the post-modern OOP system but it may
either make people wonder what the hell we mean, or may even give the wrong
impression, so I suggest we drop it.
One of the few popular posts in my blog explained this in detail. I
refer you to http://chris.prather.org/why-moose-is-post-modern.md.html.
Do you have evidence that it *is* making people wonder what the hell
we mean?
I don't mind working on the patch to the site and to Moose.pm to change all
post-modern's to modern's, but I'd like to know it would be accepted
first.
I for one like the Post-Modern epithet. Trying to suggest a package
named Moose will somehow seem more serious by changing post modern
to modern is I think ridiculous. In four years I have only felt the
need to defend the Post Modern description once (last April), and
that was because the people questioning Moose had (what I felt was) a
misunderstanding of the concept of Post Modernity[1].
Ultimately if people are objecting to Moose because it claims to be
Post Modern, they have deeper issues, and probably need to seek
professional help.
-Chris
[1] I honestly shouldn't have bothered, but someone was *wrong* on the internet.
Re: Proposal: Moose, the *modern* [not post-modern] Perl 5 Object System
On Sunday 11 Apr 2010 18:45:33 Chris Prather wrote:
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Shlomi Fish shlo...@iglu.org.il wrote:
Hi all,
I hope I'm not going to start a flamewar or appear as too domineering
(which I know has been an ongoing problem with me) but I'd like to make
the proposal in the subject:
{{{
Let's start referring to Moose as the modern Perl 5 Object System
instead of the post-modern Perl 5 Object System.
}}}
The reason is that post-modern tends to have very bad connotations in
art and philosophy, outside the narrow context of Larry Wall's
presentation Perl, the first post-modern language, which even many
Perl programmers are not familiar with, and may give people who are
first introduced to the topic the wrong idea.
[citation needed]
When I was in University, admittedly a few years ago now, Post
Modernism and one of it's tools Deconstructionism was very much the
rage. In the years since I have left university I haven't seen these
bad connotations. Do you have references?
Here's a translation of a transcript of an IRC conversation on Freenode's
#linux.il :
tzafrir_laptoprindolf,
http://whatsup.org.il/modules.php?op=modloadname=Newsfile=articlesid=6551
tzafrir_laptop What do you mean by A post-modern object system? It sounds
like something dangerous to me.
tzafrir_laptop A non-objective Object system.
rindolf It's a translation from English.
rindolf have you read the rest?
tzafrir_laptop yes.
elad661 Post-modern. Why? Is being modern not good enough for them?
tzafrir_laptop A modern system does not have a destructor.
tzafrir_laptophttp://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/פוסט_מודרניזם
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/דקונסטרוקציה [Note: there are probably links to
translations in the Hebrew wikipedia page]
tzafrir_laptop In any case, there are quite a few people for whom post-
modern is a very fishy describer.
Furthermore, there's this article called Post-modernism : 8 follies (in
Hebrew - maybe Google translate will be able to make something mildly usable
out of it.):
http://www.e-mago.co.il/e-magazine/postmodernism.html
I'm not quoting what it says there because, while I agree with the headings of
the contents in the article that I skimmed, such philosophy like that is
dangerously off-topic and flammatory here. It is possible that all this is
more relevant to Israeli intelligentsia than it is to other people worldwide.
Nevertheless, one of my points was that everyone understand immediately what
you mean by a modern object system while a post-modern object system will
make people wonder why we added the post- and whether we refer to post-
modern art or post-modern culture.
On the other hand saying that Moose is a *modern* Object System
will normally immediately give people the right idea.
I know that it's cute to call Moose the post-modern OOP system but it
may either make people wonder what the hell we mean, or may even give
the wrong impression, so I suggest we drop it.
One of the few popular posts in my blog explained this in detail. I
refer you to http://chris.prather.org/why-moose-is-post-modern.md.html.
Do you have evidence that it *is* making people wonder what the hell
we mean?
See above.
I don't mind working on the patch to the site and to Moose.pm to change
all post-modern's to modern's, but I'd like to know it would be
accepted first.
I for one like the Post-Modern epithet. Trying to suggest a package
named Moose will somehow seem more serious by changing post modern
to modern is I think ridiculous.
Why do you think so?
In four years I have only felt the
need to defend the Post Modern description once (last April), and
that was because the people questioning Moose had (what I felt was) a
misunderstanding of the concept of Post Modernity[1].
Sometimes once is too much. What about all the people who got the wrong idea,
thought Moose was not serious and decided that it's not for them?
Ultimately if people are objecting to Moose because it claims to be
Post Modern, they have deeper issues, and probably need to seek
professional help.
I don't object to Moose because it is post-modern because I know it just
means modern with a more cutesy and artsy and domain-specific-knowledge-
requiring name. But many people will likely either wonder what we mean or
reject it entirely. And no, that does not make them mentally ill[Professional
Help] , just more reluctant to try Moose, or have a WTF? moment.
Regards,
Shlomi Fish
-Chris
[1] I honestly shouldn't have bothered, but someone was *wrong* on the
internet.
[Professional Help] - why do people keep suggesting that a person should see
professional help for every little irrational whim or personality quirk?
Many people are perfectly sane yet exhibit many personality quirks. That only
makes them more interesting.
My mother told me that there was a study that tried to find out how many
people in a
Re: Proposal: Moose, the *modern* [not post-modern] Perl 5 Object System
Shlomi Fish wrote: snip/ The reason is that post-modern tends to have very bad connotations in art and philosophy, outside the narrow context of Larry Wall's presentation Perl, the first post-modern language, which even many Perl programmers are not familiar with, and may give people who are first introduced to the topic the wrong idea. On the other hand saying that Moose is a *modern* Object System will normally immediately give people the right idea. It's certainly true that, 50 years on, there are still those who still wish that post-modernism and the second half of the 20th century never happened-- that they could simply go back to slapping a capital T on the truths of their particular philosophy and call it a day. Unfortunately for them, there's a galactic-sized whack of evidence spanning every discipline from neurobiology to epistemology that, indeed, context matters and even the hoariest truths are only True insofar as we agree that they are. Yes, these realities make ultra-traditionalists have a sad; and, yes, the rest of the World, myself included, is OK with that. I know that it's cute to call Moose the post-modern OOP system but it may either make people wonder what the hell we mean, or may even give the wrong impression, so I suggest we drop it. Sorry, but the post-modern descriptor isn't simply a cute bit of Moose branding, it explicitly and aptly describes the practical metaprogramming extensions that Moose brings to Perl. -kip
Re: Proposal: Moose, the *modern* [not post-modern] Perl 5 Object System
Chris Prather wrote: I don't read Hebrew, so I'm basing this on the Google Translation, but the paper in particular seems to be hyperbolic with it's attacks. I certainly believe in a post modern relativist world but I also fully embrace the idea of an objective reality. Indeed, post-modern thought didn't end with Derrida's willfully provocative literary cavorting and the general contemporary take-away is that the influence of context and perception *demand* that we double-down on factual observation. -kip
Re: Proposal: Moose, the *modern* [not post-modern] Perl 5 Object System
Shlomi,
Sorry, we have been postmodern for a while now, to go back to modern
would be yet more fodder for the haters.
Also, Moose is very much postmodern for all the reasons that have been
cited in this thread already. It is not just us being arty software
hipsters, but is truly what I believe to be the more appropriate
description of what Moose is and where it fits within the Perl
ecosystem.
That all said, if the word postmodern has negative or different
connotations within a culture (in this case Israeli) then any
translated materials should take that into account and perhaps look
for a better word that means the same thing.
- Stevan
On Apr 11, 2010, at 11:27 AM, Shlomi Fish wrote:
Hi all,
I hope I'm not going to start a flamewar or appear as too
domineering (which I
know has been an ongoing problem with me) but I'd like to make the
proposal in
the subject:
{{{
Let's start referring to Moose as the modern Perl 5 Object System
instead of
the post-modern Perl 5 Object System.
}}}
The reason is that post-modern tends to have very bad connotations
in art
and philosophy, outside the narrow context of Larry Wall's
presentation Perl,
the first post-modern language, which even many Perl programmers
are not
familiar with, and may give people who are first introduced to the
topic the
wrong idea. On the other hand saying that Moose is a *modern* Object
System
will normally immediately give people the right idea.
I know that it's cute to call Moose the post-modern OOP system but
it may
either make people wonder what the hell we mean, or may even give
the wrong
impression, so I suggest we drop it.
I don't mind working on the patch to the site and to Moose.pm to
change all
post-modern's to modern's, but I'd like to know it would be
accepted
first.
Regards,
Shlomi Fish
P.S: of course, it could be much worse - Moose could have been
called Moose,
the new age Perl 5 object system. ;-) (Though, for the record, I
like a lot
of new age music.)
--
-
Shlomi Fish http://www.shlomifish.org/
Freecell Solver - http://fc-solve.berlios.de/
Deletionists delete Wikipedia articles that they consider lame.
Chuck Norris deletes deletionists whom he considers lame.
Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply
.
