metacpan-web VS Corinna

In January 2018, I proposed a CPAN Butterfly Plan to convert Perl functionality to Raku as closely as possible to the original API. I stated this as a goal because Perl (as a programming language) is so much more than syntax alone. Ask anyone what Perl's unique selling point is, and they will most likely tell you it is CPAN.

MetaCPAN. There are a number of project in the Perl community. This is one of the most interesting ones. source code

Perl has numerous modules for practically everything. Try a search on https://metacpan.org for anything that takes your fancy.

I can point to the module library metacpan.org that has modules to do tons of different things -- I don't know what equivalent resouorce Python has.

A good place for this issue would be https://github.com/metacpan/metacpan-web

All language package index websites are a poor imitation of metacpan.org. Without a doubt it is the single best package website I have used for finding packages, reading docs, examples, version changes, source repo. Everybody should be shamelessly copying it.

While the indicates that this is a Windows-related thing, there are a number of packages on CPAN that are in the Win32 namespace, but also work on Linux. This one, it seems does not. It seems at least one of its dependencies, the Win32-API does not work on anything else besides Windows.

A Perl distribution is an archive of files that includes a Perl module. There are no official rules on what non-module files must be included in a distribution, but they often include (among other things) test scripts, a Makefile.PL, documentation, and the license. These distributions are commonly uploaded to CPAN, which is a place for Perl programmers to upload their Perl distributions for the purpose of sharing their code.

If there are modules being used, you can read their documentation using the perldoc command or looking online at https://metacpan.org

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.