>>You're running into a "good is the enemy of the great" issue here.
Perl, as opposed to e.g. Java, has a tradition of being extensible; Moose is not the only example.
Common Lisp wasn't OO in the first silver book either.
>>counter the oft claimed "CPAN has more libraries than any other language!". It's not true, though the libraries it has might be easier to find than some.
Not what I wrote; I wrote "The Perl feature is that it is flexible. You'll get more library and language capabilities with CPAN than using anything else I know of."
You needed to go to Lisp (which sadly isn't really commercial today) for flexibility -- and Java for libraries. (And as you note -- I'm willing to believe there is more open source for Java, but finding it...?)
Re linguists -- you need to give exact examples of your claims for me to understand what you talk about. Compare with e.g. German, as you claimed there were some difference?
Perl, as opposed to e.g. Java, has a tradition of being extensible; Moose is not the only example.
Common Lisp wasn't OO in the first silver book either.
>>counter the oft claimed "CPAN has more libraries than any other language!". It's not true, though the libraries it has might be easier to find than some.
Not what I wrote; I wrote "The Perl feature is that it is flexible. You'll get more library and language capabilities with CPAN than using anything else I know of."
You needed to go to Lisp (which sadly isn't really commercial today) for flexibility -- and Java for libraries. (And as you note -- I'm willing to believe there is more open source for Java, but finding it...?)
Re linguists -- you need to give exact examples of your claims for me to understand what you talk about. Compare with e.g. German, as you claimed there were some difference?
Etc.