I have a Catalyst application that uses TT for views:
https://metacpan.org/module/Catalyst::View::TT
and I would like to try out https://metacpan.org/module/Catalyst::View::Xslate
We use the WRAPPER directive with Template Toolkit and I am curious if it is at all possible to reuse the wrapper somehow with xslate or would I have to break them into headers and footers?
You can in theory, by using TTerse syntax. According to the manual, enabling this allows you to use a lot of TT compatible code, including a simple WRAPPER statement.
However, there are caveats, as documented here. Given the philosophical differences between Xslate and TT, you might find it easier to bite the bullet and just rewrite your wrapper as header and footer Xslate code.
Or hold off on Xslate until your next project. Like horses, Templating engines are difficult to change mid-stream. :-)
Related
I am trying to use a Perl API that has been written to use the Moose OO system but there is absolutely no inheritance, aggregation, or composition involved between the objects.
And, apart from a single optional role for debugging, there are no roles or mixins involved as well.
As far as I can see at the moment, using Moose just seems to add a massive amount of complication and compile-time overhead for very little benefit.
Why would you use Moose, or OO, as a simple method of encapsulation instead of using the far simpler technique of packaging the code into Perl modules?
Just to clarify, I am totally convinced of the many advantages of using Moose to do OO in Perl correctly and completely. I just don't understand why use OO at all as a simple encapsulation technique? I am not after a subjective argument in favour or otherwise of Perl OO. I am hoping that I am missing some advantage to using the OO paradigm here that I am simply not seeing atm.
This question has an excellent series of points about data encapsulation in Perl. N.B. I am not talking about enforced encapsulation where the system stops you from looking where you shouldn't, more about just only exposing methods in a package that manipulate the data you want to play with.
Is there some advantage to using OO here that I am missing?
Edit 1: After a bit of detective work, I have just seen that the author of the Perl API is also heavily involved in the maintenance and support of the Moose framework.
Edit 2: I have just seen this question which asks a similar thing from a slightly different angle. It's seems like my answer is actually "why would you want to add the complication in the first place?", especially given the info in edit 2 above.
POSSIBLE ANSWER
The API in question seems to be only using the Moose OO system in order to prevent namespace pollution.
This could also be done more than adequately by using Perl packages though, as #amon point out in the comment below, using the standard package mechanism can become cumbersome quite quickly. BTW A big thanks to for all the comments to help clarify what I was asking.
Every situation is diffferent, and whether you choose to use Moose or another object framework (or none at all) really comes down to what you're planning to do and what your requirements are.
There might not be any immediate advantage to writing the system in question with Moose, but consider these:
You get free access to Moose's metaobject system, so you can interrogate the objects for useful information in a well-defined way
You can extend the provided classes using Moose's inheritance system; so even if they don't use inheritance themselves, the framework is already in place for you to do so if needed
You have peace-of-mind because you know the system was built on the most widely-deployed and well-tested object framework for Perl.
People know Moose, meaning there is a higher probability of getting answers to questions if something breaks.
IOW, there is inherent value in using popular tools.
Not sure it's relevant to the API in question, but no-one seems to have mentioned data types yet - that's a big benefit of Moose or Moo, having easily defined and understood (and re-usable) type validation and coercion for attributes.
Does anyone know of any examples of code written in prolog to implement a DSL to generate perl code?
DCGs might be an excellent choice!
I have used a similar approach for generation of UML class diagrams (really, graphviz code for such diagrams) from simple English sentences (shameless-plug: paper here). It should be possible to do something similar with generation of Perl code instead.
In the paper above, we use a constraint store (CHR) as intermediate representation which allows some extra reasoning power. Alternatively you can build a representation as an output feature/argument of the DCG.
Note that DCGs can be useful both for the parsing of your sentences and the generation of your Perl code.
Well, not exactly what you are asking for, but maybe you can use AI::Prolog for what you are looking for. That way you may be able to use Perl and generate the Perl code you want.
I'm not sure why you would want to do that?
Perl is a very expressive language, I'm not sure why you'd want to try to generate Perl code from Prolog; in order to make it useful, you'd be getting closer and closer to Perl in your "DSL", by which point you'd be better off just writing some Perl, surely?
I think you need to expand this question a bit to cover what you're trying to achieve in a little more detail.
SWI-Prolog library(http/html_write) library builds on DCG a DSL for page layout.
It shows a well tought model for integrating Prolog and HTML, but doesn't attempt to cover the entire problem. The 'residual logic' on the client side remains underspecified, but this is reasonable, being oriented on practical issues 'reporting' from RDF.
Thus the 'small detail' client interaction logic is handled in a 'black box' fashion, and such demanded to YUI components in the published application (the award winner Cliopatria).
The library it's extensible, but being very detailed, I guess for your task you should eventually reuse just the ideas behind.
I realize that it is impossible to have one language that is best for everything.
But there is a class of simple programs, whose source code looks virtually identical in any language.
I am thinking not just "hello world", but also arithmetics, maybe string manipulation, basic stuff that you would typically see in utility classes.
I would like to keep my utilities in this meta-language and have it automatically translated to a bunch of popular languages. I do this by hand right now.
Again, I do not ask for translation of every single possible program. I am thinking a very limited, simple language, but superportable.
Do you know of anything like that? Is there a reason why it should not exist?
Check Haxe, and its Wikipedia page. It's open source and its main purpose is what you describe: generating code in many languages from only one source.
Just about any language that you choose is going to have some feature that doesn't map to another in a natural way. The closest thing I can think of is probably a useful subset of JavaScript. Of course, if you are the language author you can limit it as much as you want, providing only constructs that are common to just about any language (loops, conditionals, etc.)
For purposes of mutability, an XML representation would be best, but you wouldn't want to code in it.
If you find that there is no universal language, you can try a pragmatic model-driven development approach, using a template-based code generator.
On the template you keep the underlying concepts of an algorithm. Then, you would add code for this algorithm in one or more specific languages (C++,Java,JS,Python) when necessary. You would have to do it anyway, whatever the language or approach you choose. A configuration switch would pick the correct language for any template you apply.
AtomWeaver is a code generator that works with templates and employs ABSE as the modeling approach.
I did some looking and found this.
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/universal-programming-language
looks interesting
A classic Pascal is very simple. Oberon is another similar option. Or you could invent your own derivative language similar to the pseudocode from the computer science textbooks. It's trivial to implement a translator from one of that languages into any decent modern imperative language.
I've been learning about the CGI module lately, and the book I'm using shows there are two ways you can use CGI, function-oriented or object-oriented. They say the benefit of having object-oriented is only to be able to create two CGI objects. First of all is this true, and are there any other benefits, and secondly what example is there for using two CGI objects?
When I need to put together a very simple CGI script, I use the CGI module's OO interface.
I use the OOP interface because the standard, imperative interface imports a ton of symbols that may conflict with my own symbols. I don't like this, so I always prevent symbol importation. I don't use CGI;. Instead, I use CGI ();.
I also limit my use to generating the header and parsing parameters. I always generate HTML as HTML or better yet, use a template module like TemplateToolkit.
I strictly avoid CGI's HTML generation functions. Why?
I (along with many other people) already know HTML, and I see no benefit in learning CGI's pseudo-html interface.
When a script grows up and needs to be used in another environment, it is easier to extract the HTML blocks or templates and reuse them.
Don't interpret what I've written as a blanket condemnation of CGI.pm. There's plenty to love about CGI.pm. It gets content type generation right. It makes parameter parsing trivial. It is a core module. It makes command line debugging and testing easy.
I think I have found the answer to my question
http://perldoc.perl.org/CGI.html#PROGRAMMING-STYLE
Reading through the faq, an example given for multiple uses of CGI objects is I can store CGI and load previous CGI objects, which is quite useful.
Beyond the advantages you cite I'd also point out that OOP usage of CGI.pm is much cleaner to read (at least for me) and manage than the functional version.
I also suspect it is more common so people who have to maintain your code after you (including you six months from now) will find it easier to maintain.
I'm investigating using DbC in our Perl projects, and I'm trying to find the best way to verify contracts in the source (e.g. checking pre/post conditions, invariants, etc.)
Class::Contract was written by Damian Conway and is now maintained by C. Garret Goebel, but it looks like it hasn't been touched in over 8 years.
It looks like what I want to use is Moose, as it seems as though it might offer functionality that could be used for DbC, but I was wondering if anyone had any resources (articles, etc.) on how to go about this, or if there are any helpful modules out there that I haven't been able to find.
Is anyone doing DbC with Perl? Should I just "jump in" to Moose and see what I can get it to do for me?
Moose gives you a lot of the tools (if not all the sugar) to do DbC. Specifically, you can use the before, after and around method hooks (here's some examples) to perform whatever assertions you might want to make on arguments and return values.
As an alternative to "roll your own DbC" you could use a module like MooseX::Method::Signatures or MooseX::Method to take care of validating parameters passed to a subroutine. These modules don't handle the "post" or "invariant" validations that DbC typically provides, however.
EDIT: Motivated by this question, I've hacked together MooseX::Contract and uploaded it to the CPAN. I'd be curious to get feedback on the API as I've never really used DbC first-hand.
Moose is an excellent oo system for perl, and I heartily recommend it for anyone coding objects in perl. You can specify "subtypes" for your class members that will be enforced when set by accessors or constructors (the same system can be used with the Moose::Methods package for functions). If you are coding more than one liners, use Moose;
As for doing DbC, well, might not be the best fit for perl5. It's going to be hard in a language that offers you very few guarantees. Personally, in a lot of dynamic languages, but especially perl, I tend to make my guiding philosophy DRY, and test-driven development.
I would also recommend using Moose.
However as an "alternative" take a look at Sub::Contract.
To quote the author....
Sub::Contract offers a pragmatic way to implement parts of the programming by contract paradigm in Perl.
Sub::Contract is not a design-by-contract framework.
Sub::Contract aims at making it very easy to constrain subroutines input arguments and return values in order to emulate strong typing at runtime.
If you don't need class invariants, I've found the following Perl Hacks book recommendation to be a good solution for some programs. See Smart::Comments.