At 2014-09-21 20:14:01 -0700, [email protected] wrote: > > Everybody seems to prefer the version with signatures, but many are > worried about the experimental bit.
I like the idea of having O(1) boilerplate instead of O(n) (in the number of subs), but I don't think it matters all that much for our example. The example is compelling because of what it *does*. I can't imagine thinking "Wow, signatures! Better use Mojolicious!" as opposed to "Hey, websockets are really simple in Mojolicious!" I also find the «use experimental …» thing a bit of a turn off, but not enough to really matter. Perhaps people who don't know perl would feel differently about it, I don't know. But people who know Perl would also not find it so extraordinary if the example had a «my $c = shift» or whatever. -- ams -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Mojolicious" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/mojolicious. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
