woman in black tank top and blue denim jeans

This blog has devoted a fair amount of attention to the popular and multifaceted object-​oriented system Moose and its lightweight subset Moo. I’ve also covered Object::Pad, the testbed of concepts and syntax for Corinna, the proposed next-​generation Perl core OO system. But what if your project is too memory‑, performance‑, or dependency-​constrained for these options?

It turns out that CPAN has a rich history of lighter-​weight OO modules to meet many different needs. If you can live with their trade-​offs, they’re worth investigating instead of rolling your own layer over Perl’s OO. Here are a few.

Class::Struct

Class::Structs main claim to fame is its inclusion in the standard Perl distribution, so there’s no need to install dependencies from CPAN. It provides a syntax for defining classes as C‑style structs at either compile time or runtime. (There’s no speed advantage to the former; it just means that your class will be built as if you had written the accessors yourself as subs.) Here’s an example:

#!/usr/bin/env perl

use v5.24; # for strict, say, and postfix dereferencing
use warnings;

package Local::MyClass;
use Class::Struct (
    foo => '$',
    bar => '@',
    baz => '%',
);

package main;

my $obj = Local::MyClass->new(
    foo => 'hello',
    bar => [1, 2, 3],
    baz => { name => 'Mark'},
);

say $obj->foo, ' ', $obj->baz('name');
say join ',', $obj->bar->@*;

# replace the name element of baz
$obj->baz(name => 'Sharon');

# replace the second element of bar
$obj->bar(1, 'replaced');
say $obj->foo, ' ', $obj->baz('name');
say join ',', $obj->bar->@*;

And here’s the output:

hello Mark
1,2,3
hello Sharon
1,replaced,3

Note that Class::Struct supports accessors for scalar, array, and hash types, as well as other classes (not demonstrated). Consult the module’s documentation for the different ways to define and retrieve them.

Class::Accessor

Class::Accessor does one thing: it makes accessors and mutators (also known as getters and setters) for fields in your class. Okay, it actually does another thing: it provides your class with a new method to initialize those fields. Those accessors can be read-​write, read-​only, or write-​only. (Why would you want write-​only accessors?) You can define any of them using either its historical class methods or a Moose-​like attribute syntax.

If you’re trying to squeeze every bit of performance out of your code and can sacrifice a little flexibility in altering accessor behavior, you can opt for Class::Accessor::Fast or Class::Accessor::Faster. The former still uses hash references under the hood to represent objects and the latter uses array references. The main Class::Accessor documentation contains an efficiency comparison of the three for your edification.

Here’s an example script using Class::Accessor::Faster and the Moose-​like syntax:

#!/usr/bin/env perl

use v5.12; # for strict and say
use warnings;

package Local::MyClass;
use Class::Accessor::Faster 'moose-like';

has readwrite => (is => 'rw');
has readonly  => (is => 'ro');

package main;

my $obj = Local::MyClass->new( { # must be a hash reference
    readwrite => 'hello',
    readonly  => 'world',
} );

say $obj->readwrite, ' ', $obj->readonly;
$obj->readwrite('greetings');
say $obj->readwrite, ' ', $obj->readonly;

# throws an error
$obj->readonly('Cleveland');

And here is its output:

hello world
greetings world
'main' cannot alter the value of 'readonly' on objects of class 'Local::MyClass' at ./caf.pl line 24.

Class::Tiny

Class::Tiny both does less and more than Class::Accessor. All of its generated accessors are read-​write, but you can also give their attributes lazy defaults. Its generated constructor takes arguments via either a Class::Accessor-style hash reference or a plain list of key/​value pairs, so that’s a little more convenient. It also supports Moose-​style BUILDARGS, BUILD, and DEMOLISH methods for argument adjustment, validation, and object cleanup, respectively.

It’s a toss-​up as to which of the previous two is better.” You’ll have to examine their respective features and determine which ones map to your needs.

Here’s an example script that shows a few of Class::Tiny’s unique features:

#!/usr/bin/env perl

use v5.12; # for strict and say
use warnings;

package Local::MyClass;
use Class::Tiny qw<foo bar>,
{
    baz       => 'default baz',
    timestamp => sub { time },
};

package main;

my $obj = Local::MyClass->new( # plain key-values OK
    foo => 'hello',
    bar => 'world',
);

say $obj->foo, ' ', $obj->bar;
say 'Object built on ', scalar localtime $obj->timestamp;
$obj->foo('greetings');
$obj->bar('Cleveland');
say $obj->foo, ' ', $obj->bar;
say $obj->baz;

And its output:

hello world
Object built on Tue Sep  7 09:00:00 2021
greetings Cleveland
default baz

Object::Tiny

For an even more minimalist approach, consider Object::Tiny. Its accessors are read-​only, it gives you a simple constructor, and that’s it. Its documentation lists a number of reasons why it can be superior to Class::Accessor, including lower memory usage and less typing. There’s also a fork called Object::Tiny::RW that adds read-​write support to its accessors.

Class::Tiny’s documentation contains a feature table comparison of it, Object::Tiny, and Class::Accessor. This may help you decide which to use.

Here’s an example script:

#!/usr/bin/env perl

use v5.12; # for strict and say
use warnings;

package Local::MyClass;
use Object::Tiny qw<foo bar>;

package main;

my $obj = Local::MyClass->new(
    foo => 'hello',
    bar => 'world',
);

say $obj->foo, ' ', $obj->bar;

# has no effect unless you use Object::Tiny::RW
$obj->foo('greetings');
say $obj->foo, ' ', $obj->bar;

And its output:

hello world
hello world

Add some speed with XS

If the above options are still too slow and you don’t mind requiring a C compiler to install them, there are variants that use Perl’s XS interface instead of pure Perl code:

Roles with Role::Tiny

If you’re eyeing Moose and Moo’s support for roles (also known as traits) as an alternative to inheritance but still want to keep things light with one of the above modules, you’re in luck. The Role::Tiny module lets you compose methods into consuming classes with Moo-​like syntax and will pull in Common Lisp Object System-style method modifier support from Class::Method::Modifiers if you need it. It does mean another couple of CPAN dependencies, so if that’s a problem in your situation you’ll just have to live without roles.

Here’s an example script with a role and a consuming class that uses Class::Tiny. The role requires that its consumers implement a required_method, provides a foo method that uses it, and a method modifier for bar.

#!/usr/bin/env perl

use v5.12; # for strict and say
use warnings;

package Local::MyRole;
use Role::Tiny;

requires 'required_method';

sub foo {
    my $self = shift;
    say $self->required_method();
}

before bar => sub {
    warn 'About to call bar...';
};

package Local::MyClass;
use Class::Tiny {name => ''};
use Role::Tiny::With;
with 'Local::MyRole';

sub bar {
    my ($self, $greeting) = @_;
    say "$greeting ", $self->name;
}

sub required_method {
    my $self = shift;
    return 'Required by Local::MyRole';
}

package main;

my $obj = Local::MyClass->new(name => 'Mark');
$obj->bar('hello');

$obj->name('Sharon');
$obj->bar('salutations');

$obj->foo();

And its output:

About to call bar... at ./rt.pl line 17.
hello Mark
About to call bar... at ./rt.pl line 17.
salutations Sharon
Required by Local::MyRole

What’s your favorite?

There will always be those who insist on writing everything longhand, but modules like these can save a lot of time and typing as well as reduce errors. Do you have a favorite, maybe something I missed? Let me know in the comments.

black deer lying on plants near green trees during daytime

Last month I wrote about using Moose’s override function to, well, override a superclass’s method. Chris Prather on the #moose IRC channel suggested soon after that the around method modifier (or its little sisters before and after) might be a better choice if you’re also calling the original method inside. He noted that at a minimum override only works if you’re subclassing, around will apply to composed methods too.”

His point was that when you decide to compose roles (also know as traits) instead of or in addition to more traditional inheritance, override simply doesn’t work: only a method modifier will do. (And as Graham Knop and Karen Etheridge later remarked on IRC, override isn’t even an option if you’re using Moo as an alternative to Moose.)

Modifying a role’s method with around might look like this:

#!/usr/bin/env perl

use v5.12; # for strict and say
use warnings;

package Local::Role::Hungry;
use Moose::Role;
requires 'name';

sub wants_food {
my $self = shift;
say $self->name, ' is hungry!';
return;
}

package Local::GuineaPig;
use Moose;
has name => (is => 'ro');
with 'Local::Role::Hungry';

around wants_food => sub {
my ($orig, $self, @args) = @_;
say $self->name, ' runs to the front of the cage!';
$self->$orig(@args);
say 'Wheek!';
return;
};

package Local::Dog;
use Moose;
has name => (is => 'ro');
with 'Local::Role::Hungry';

around wants_food => sub {
my ($orig, $self, @args) = @_;
say $self->name, ' runs to the kitchen!';
$self->$orig(@args);
say 'Woof!';
return;
};

before wants_food => sub {
my $self = shift;
say $self->name, ' is jumping!';
};

package main;
my $dog = Local::Dog->new(name => 'Seamus');
my @pigs = map { Local::GuineaPig->new(name => $_) }
qw<Cocoa Ginger Pepper>;

for my $animal ($dog, @pigs) {
$animal->wants_food();
}

Running the above yields:

Seamus runs to the kitchen!
Seamus is hungry!
Woof!
Cocoa runs to the front of the cage!
Cocoa is hungry!
Wheek!
Ginger runs to the front of the cage!
Ginger is hungry!
Wheek!
Pepper runs to the front of the cage!
Pepper is hungry!
Wheek!

It’s a little more involved than overriding a sub, since method modifiers are passed both the consumed role’s original method ($orig above) and the instance ($self above) as parameters. It has the same effect, though, and you can call the original method by saying $self->$orig(parameters).

If all you want to do is have something happen either before or after the original method, just use before or after:

before wants_food => sub {
my $self = shift;
say $self->name, ' is jumping!';
};

Note that there’s no return value in a before or after modifier, as those are handled by the original method.

Modifiers aren’t limited to consuming classes; they can be in roles and modify their consumers’ methods. They also have a couple of other tricks:

  • You can pass an array reference to modify multiple methods at once.
  • You can use the contents of a variable to specify the modified method name, and use that same variable in the modifier itself.
  • You can use a regular expression to select methods. (Beware if you’re using Moo that its Class::Method::Modifiers module doesn’t support this.)

Putting these together gives you constructs like these:

after qw<foo bar baz> => sub {
say 'Something got called';
};

for my $method_name (qw<foo bar baz>) {
before $method_name => sub {
say "Calling $method_name...";
};
}

before qr/^request_/ => sub {
my ($self, @args) = @_;
$self->is_valid(@args) or die 'Invalid arguments';
};

Moose comes with great introductory manuals for method modifiers and roles, so be sure to check those out. There’s a lot more to them and a blog can only cover so much.

close up of gear shift over black background

Last week found me exploring Object::Pad as an alternative to the Moo object-​oriented framework for Perl since the former is prototyping the syntax and concepts for a proposed built-​in OO framework named Corinna. I had to put that particular project on hold as dbcritics current design is a bit too role-​happy and Object::Pad currently lacks method modifiers as in Moo. (Corinna is explicitly skipping them for its current minimum viable product.) Thankfully, development continues at a rapid pace. For instance, author Paul Evans has already addressed a problem I ran into when attempting to examine slot values in the debugger.

But I wanted to highlight a point I made in one of the comments last week: Object::Pad’s slots (a.k.a. fields, attributes, whatever) are private by default, completely unexposed to other class instances unless they monkey with the meta-​object protocol. Unless you explicitly define or generate some kind of accessor method, these slots act like lexical (a.k.a. my) variables and are only available to methods within the class.

Here’s an example:

use v5.14; # for say and package blocks
use Object::Pad 0.50;
use Feature::Compat::Try;

class Local::MyClass {
    has $arg           :param  = 'hello';
    has $readable_slot :reader = 'world';
    has $private_slot          = 'shh';

    method show_slots {
        say "You passed me $arg in the constructor.";
        say "I can see $readable_slot and you can use it as a reader.";
        say "Here's me using the reader too: ", $self->readable_slot;
        say "But only I can see $private_slot.";
        return;
    }
}

package main {
    my $obj = Local::MyClass->new(arg => 'foo');
    $obj->show_slots();
    say $obj->readable_slot;

    # Nope: Not a HASH reference
    try { say $obj->{private_slot} } catch ($e) { say "Nope: $e" }

    # Nope: Can't locate object method "private_slot" via package "Local::MyClass"
    try { say $obj->private_slot } catch ($e) { say "Nope: $e" }
}

This stands in stark contrast to Perl’s more low-​tech hashref-​based objects, where all attributes are available simply through dereferencing the instance, e.g., $object->{foo}. Although discouraged, OO purists sometimes ding Perl for this kind of unenforced encapsulation, and I myself have seen codebases that violate it despite the convention of preceding private method and attribute names with an underscore (_).

Unfortunately, there is not yet any way to declare an Object::Pad method private. You could use lexical subroutines, but then you lose the convenience of a pre-​made $self variable and accessibility through the MOP. The Corinna proposal lists several different types of methods including private ones, so maybe this is an area for future Object::Pad development.

Another open question from the comments: How is [Object::Pad] on mem­o­ry and speed com­pared to Moo and blessed objects?” Luckily the prolific perlancar has already added Object::Pad to his Bencher::Scenarios::Accessors distribution, and from that, it appears that between it and Moo, Object::Pad is faster on startup, neck-​and-​neck on object construction and accessor generation, and slower on reads and writes. (Note that Object::Pad is a fast-​moving target so these figures may not track with the latest version’s changes.) It’s no surprise that plain blessed objects fared better than both in most scenarios except for reads, where Moo was faster than hash-​based objects but slower than array-based.

I expect that should Corinna be built into Perl it would narrow that gap with blessed objects, but in my mind, the advantages of using an object system outweigh the performance hit 95% of the time. As far as benchmarking memory goes, I still need to test that on a Linux box (maybe my new VPS?) once I get more familiar with the Bencher framework.

Introduction: The current state of play

Perl has very minimal” support for object-​oriented (OO) programming out of the box by its own admission. It’s class-​based but classes are just packages used differently. Objects are just data structures blessed into a class, methods are just subroutines whose first argument is an object or class name, and attributes/​properties are often just the key-​value pair of a hash stored in the object. (This last is a feature shared with JavaScript, whose prototype-​based objects are just collections of key-​value pairs with the keys addressed as properties.) You’ve got polymorphism, inheritance, and it’s up to you to enforce encapsulation.

This can take a lot of work to use effectively. To help address that, several systems have been developed over the years to reduce boilerplate and provide modern (or postmodern”) OO features that developers from other languages expect. My favorite for a while has been Moo: it’s got the features I need 90% of the time like built-​in constructors, roles (an alternative to composition through inheritance), attributes, type validation, and method modifiers for enhanced polymorphism. And if I need to dig around in the guts of classes, attributes, and the like I can always upgrade to Moo’s big brother Moose and its meta-​object protocol with minimal effort.

Corinna, Object::Pad, and porting dbcritic

But there’s a new kid on the block. Curtis Ovid” Poe has been spearheading Corinna, an effort to bring effective OO to the Perl core and leapfrog [emphasis his] the capabilities of many OO languages today.” No CPAN modules, no chain of dependencies; just solid OO features and syntax built-​in. And while Corinna is a ways off from shipping, Paul LeoNerd” Evans (maybe I should get a cool nickname too?) has been implementing some of these ideas as new Perl keyword syntax in his Object::Pad module.

Both Ovid and LeoNerd have been asking developers to try out Object::Pad, not just as a new toy, but to get feedback on what works and what needs to be added. So I thought I’d try porting an older small Moo-​based project named dbcritic to this new reality. In the process, I learned some of the advantages and disadvantages of working with Object::Pad. Hopefully, this can inform both it and Corinna’s evolution as well as other curious developers’ evaluations. You can follow my coding efforts in this GitHub branch.

First, the marquee result: the code for App::DBCritic (the class I started with) is cleaner and shorter, with 33 lines shaved off so far. Mainly this is due to Object::Pad’s more concise attribute syntax (called slots” in its documentation) and lack of explicit support for Moo’s attribute coercion. I only used the latter for one attribute in the Moo version and I’m not sure it worked particularly well, so it wasn’t hard to jettison. But if your code supports coercions extensively, you’ll have to look into Object::Pad’s BUILD or ADJUST phase blocks for now.

Before, a Moo attribute with various options:

has schema => (
    is        => 'ro',
    coerce    => 1,
    lazy      => 1,
    default   => \&_build_schema,
    coerce    => \&_coerce_schema,
    predicate => 1,
);

After, an Object::Pad slot. No coercion and builder code is handled in a later ADJUST block:

has $schema :reader :param = undef;

Speaking of ADJUST blocks, it took a little bit of insight from the #perl IRC channel to realize that they were the appropriate place for setting slot defaults that are computed from other slots. Previously I was using a maze of dependencies mixing Moo lazy attributes and builder methods. Clarifying the main set of optional constructor arguments into a single ADJUST block helped untangle things, so this might be an indication that lazy attributes are an antipattern when trying to write clean code. It’s also worth noting that Object::Pad ADJUST blocks run on object construction, whereas Moo lazy attributes are only built when needed. This tends to matter for database access.

The ADJUST block for the $schema slot:

ADJUST {
    my @connect_info = ( $dsn, $username, $password );
    if ($class_name and eval "require $class_name") {
        $schema = $class_name->connect(@connect_info);
    }
    elsif ( not ( blessed($schema) and $schema->isa('DBIx::Class::Schema') ) ) {
        local $SIG{__WARN__} = sub {
            if ( $_[0] !~ / has no primary key at /ms ) {
                print {*STDERR} $_[0];
            }
        };
        $schema = App::DBCritic::Loader->connect(@connect_info);
    }
    croak 'No schema defined' if not $schema;
}

Object::Pad’s slots have one great advantage over Moo and Moose attributes: they directly support Perl array and hash data structures, while the latter only supports scalars and references contained in scalars. This means methods in your class can eliminate a dereferencing step, again leading to cleaner code. I used this specifically in the @violations array and %elements hash slots and was very pleased with the results.

The @violations and %elements slots and their ADJUST blocks:

has %elements;

ADJUST {
    %elements = (
        Schema       => [$schema],
        ResultSource => [ map { $schema->source($_) } $schema->sources ],
        ResultSet    => [ map { $schema->resultset($_) } $schema->sources ],
    );
}

has @violations;

ADJUST {
    @violations = map { $self->_policy_loop( $_, $elements{$_} ) }
        keys %elements;
}

method violations { wantarray ? @violations : \@violations }

Issues

I did have some development lifecycle issues with Object::Pad, but they’re mainly a result of its future-​facing syntax. I had to give up using perltidy and perlcritic in my build and test phases, respectively: perltidy doesn’t understand slot attributes like :reader and :param and will emit an error file (but code still compiles), and several of the perlcritic policies I use report problems because its PPI parser doesn’t recognize the new syntax. I could add exceptions in the perlcriticrc file and litter my code with more ## no critic annotations than it already had, but at this point, it was easier to just disable it entirely.

Another thing I had to disable for now was my Dist::Zilla::Plugin::Test::UnusedVars-generated Test::Vars test for detecting unused variables, as it reports multiple failures for the hidden @(Object::Pad/slots) variable. It does have options for ignoring certain variables, though, so I can explore using those and possibly file a pull request to ignore that variable by default.

Conclusion: The future looks bright

Overall I’m satisfied with Object::Pad and by extension some of the syntax that Corinna will introduce. I’m going to try porting the rest of dbcritic and see if I can work around the issues I listed above without giving up the kwalitee improvement tools I’m used to. I’ll post my findings if I feel it merits another blog.

What do you think? Is this the future of object-​oriented Perl? Let me know in the comments below.

circus theme party

Last week’s article got a great response on Hacker News, and this particular comment caught my eye:

I think this is the real point about Perl code readability: it gives you enough flexibility to do things however you like, and as a result many programmers are faced with a mirror that reflects their own bad practices back at them.

orev, Hacker News

This is why Damian Conway’s Perl Best Practices (2005) is one of my favorite books and perlcritic, the code analyzer is one of my favorite tools. (Though the former could do with an update and the latter includes policies that contradict Conway.) Point perlcritic at your code, maybe add some other policies that agree with your house style, and gradually ratchet up the severity level from gentle” to brutal.” All kinds of bad juju will come to light, from wastefully using grep to having too many subroutine arguments to catching private variable use from other packages. perlcritic offers a useful baseline of conduct and you can always customize its configuration to your own tastes.

The other conformance tool in a Perl developer’s belt is perltidy, and it too has a Conway-​compatible configuration as well as its default Perl Style Guide settings. I’ve found that more than anything else, perltidy helps settle arguments both between developers and between their code in helping to avoid excessive merge conflicts.

But apart from extra tools, Perl the language itself can be bent and even broken to suit just about anyone’s agenda. Those used to more bondage-​and-​discipline languages (hi, Java!) might feel revulsion at the lengths to which this has sometimes been taken, but per the quote above this is less an indictment of the language and more of its less methodical programmers.

Some of this behavior can be rehabilitated with perlcritic and perltidy, but what about other sins attributed to Perl? Here are a few perennial favorites”:

Objects and Object-​Oriented Programming

Perl has a minimalist object system based on earlier-​available language concepts like data structures (often hashes, which it has in common with JavaScript), packages, and subroutines. Since Perl 5’s release in 1994 much verbose OO code has been written using these tools.

The good news is that since 2007 we’ve had a sophisticated metaobject-​protocol-​based layer on top of them called Moose, since 2010 a lightweight but forward-​compatible system called Moo, and a couple of even tinier options as described in the Perl OO Tutorial. Waiting in the wings is Corinna, an effort to bring next-​generation object capabilities into the Perl core itself, and Object::Pad, a testbed for some of the ideas in Corinna that you can use today in current code. (Really, please try it—the author needs feedback!)

All this is to say that 99% of the time you never need trouble yourself with bless, constructors, or writing accessors for class or object attributes. Smarter people than me have done the work for you, and you might even find a concept or three that you wish other languages had.

Contexts

There are two major ones: list and scalar. Another way to think of it is plural” vs. singular” in English, which is hopefully a thing you’re familiar with as you’re reading this blog.

Some functions in Perl act differently depending on whether the expected return value is a list or a scalar, and a function will provide a list or scalar context to its arguments. Mostly these act just as you would expect or would like them to, and you can find out how a function behaves by reading its documentation. Your own functions can behave like this too, but there’s usually no need as both scalars and lists are automatically interpreted into lists.” Again, Perl’s DWIMmery at work.

Subroutine and Method Arguments

I’ve already written about this. Twice. And presented about it. Twice. The short version: Perl has signatures, but they’ve been considered experimental for a while. In the meantime, there are alternatives on CPAN. You can even have type constraints if you want.


I’ll leave you with this: Over the past month, Neil Bowers of the Perl Steering Council has been collecting quirks like these from Perl developers. The PSC is reviewing this collection for potential documentation fixes, bug fixes, further discussion, etc. I wouldn’t expect to see any fundamental changes to the language out of this effort, but it’s a good sign that potentially confusing features are being addressed.