----- Original Message ----
> From: Chris Prather <ch...@prather.org>
> To: Shlomi Fish <shlo...@iglu.org.il>
> Cc: moose@perl.org
> Sent: Sun, April 11, 2010 11:45:33 AM
> Subject: Re: Proposal: "Moose, the *modern* [not "post-modern"] Perl 5 Object
> System"
>
> On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Shlomi Fish <
> ymailto="mailto:shlo...@iglu.org.il";
> href="mailto:shlo...@iglu.org.il";>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?
As someone with an undergraduate degree in literature and philosophy I tend to
agree. However "post modern' has a pretty nebulous definition. For example
deconstructionism, which tends to fall under the PM umbrella, does provoke
strong reactions amongst many philosophers (including myself). However
deconstructionism != post modernism.
I think the core concepts of post modernism tend to include ideas like mixing
over pure, inversion of hierarchies, etc and for that I think it works for
Moose. At this point the catchphrase 'postmodern OO' is well established even
if misunderstood.
I think 'Post' is also good because it implies we are moving beyond something,
presumably a lot of the cruft which lead Perl to have such a terrible imagine.
For me I can't see changing this is going to help us, although I appreciate
your thinking through the social perception issue. Certainly I believe this is
something the Perl community does need to pay attention to
john
>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
> href="http://Moose.pm";>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.
