Corinna VS CppCoreGuidelines

this the repository of initial draft:https://github.com/Ovid/Cor

after they proposed this, people debating around this in long time.

Have you been following the developments with Perl's forthcoming OOP engine, Corinna?

You can read about some of the discussions here (that's after the BUILD/BUILDARGS debate). Unfortunately, since much of the discussion took place on IRC, and there's a policy against allowing public logging without explicit permission of the channel owners (I am not an IRC guy, so I'm not one of the channel owners), much of this valuable discussion has been lost to time. I don't wish to repeat this mistake in future projects, but I can't change the past.

I've opened a discussion about revisiting Twigils.

However, I wouldn't shelve your plans to put more time into Moose. The PR for the initial Corinna work is out and while /u/leonerduk's work is great, the PR is huge and there are a few minor issues to deal with. I do not know when the initial Corinna work will be finished and even after that, it will be a couple of years before it's considered "stable."

From the Rationale for Corinna:

It's based on years of experience being the lead designer of the Corinna project and trying to figure out how we can get a version of Moose which is safer and easier to use, including removing a lot of boilerplate. This code:

By now most of you have probably heard about the Corinna project to get modern object-oriented programming in the Perl core. The RFC has been submitted to P5P and it's a slimmed down version of the full specification. It's in seven stages, each building on the last.

Then you'll be happy to know that I've submitted an RFC to the core Perl team to introduce a modern OO model to the language. So far the response has been positive and we already have /u/leonerduk who's committed himself to implement it.

You need to talk to Bjarne and Herb...

"C++ Core Guidelines" - https://isocpp.github.io/CppCoreGuidelines/CppCoreGuidelines

In addition to the other comments -

TypeScript deliberately takes a "good enough" approach to improving JavaScript, instead of designing an ideal but incompatible approach. For example, its handling of [function parameter bivariance](https://www.typescriptlang.org/docs/handbook/type-compatibil...) is unsound but works much better with the existing JavaScript ecosystem. By contrast, a more academic functional programming language would guarantee a sound type system but would be a huge shift from JavaScript.

By analogy, Herb Sutter is arguing that something like the [C++ Core Guidelines](https://isocpp.github.io/CppCoreGuidelines/CppCoreGuidelines), with tooling help in this new Cpp2 syntax, can bring real improvements to safety. Something like Rust's borrow checker would bring much stricter guarantees, backed by academic research and careful design, but would be incompatible and a huge adjustment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2olsGf6JIkU

Take a look at Effective Modern c++ by Scott Meyers and the ISO c++ core guidelines. These resources are great for learning how to write better, more modern C++. I don't think it would be hard to grasp if you're already familiar with the language, just make sure to actually write some code which makes use of this stuff, otherwise it's easy to forget.

Look to the C++ Core Guidelines. It's not perfect, it has some flaws, including some sabotaging advice apparently adopted for political reasons. But at least it has some C++ authorities (Bjarne and Herb) as authors.