azreal1977 at hotmail.com
Sat Oct 7 16:04:15 UTC 2006
Sorry for not being clear. By "real" I mean downward *and* upward usable
closures. I.e. no "fixTemps".
Now I have seen some people say something like "well we aparently don't need
them". But that is always a dangerous path. C thought they didn't need
automatic memory management. BASIC thought they didn't need recursion.
Paul Graham thinks he has never needed Object orientation.
>From: "Klaus D. Witzel" <klaus.witzel at cobss.com>
>Reply-To: The general-purpose Squeak developers
>list<squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
>To: squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org
>Subject: Re: Real closures
>Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2006 14:53:44 +0200
>Hi J J,
>the "real" about closures depends on whom you ask and where you ask. For
>an example see
>On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 14:21:04 +0200, J J wrote:
>>From: Jecel Assumpcao Jr
>>>Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 2:10 PM
>>>A more radical change to the Squeak VM was Anthony Hannan's VI4 work,
>>>which gave us better performance and real closures. But though his new
>>>bytecodes were cleaner, my impression is that he felt the gain wasn't
>>>enough to justify losing the historical connection to the "blue book"
>>So what happened with this? I have seen several references in this list
>>(this is the first one I found) of someone making a good closure
>>implimentation and it getting rejected. Why are they getting rejected?
>>I think real completel closures are a requirement for any modern
>>language. Even Java and C++ (!!!) will have then within a few years.
More information about the Squeak-dev