election details *PLEASE READ*
J J
azreal1977 at hotmail.com
Fri Feb 23 15:51:04 UTC 2007
>From: Andreas Raab <andreas.raab at gmx.de>
>Reply-To: The general-purpose Squeak developers
>list<squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
>To: The general-purpose Squeak developers
>list<squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
>Subject: Re: election details *PLEASE READ*
>Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 22:05:50 -0800
>
>J J wrote:
>>Namespaces ok, but the way they have been done is not always that great.
>>Modules are pretty much the same thing, and interfaces? No. Traits are
>>much better then interfaces imo.
>
>Modules is one area where IMO Java shines. Not necessarily because of the
>language part but because of the whole ClassLoader/JAR/Applet pipeline
>(just run Dan's SqueakOnJava in the browser and then think about what must
>be true to be able to handle that in a reasonably secure fashion). It's the
>best deployment solution I am aware of.
Ah, I wasn't thinking about them from that angle. Good point.
>In the namespace area I think Python wins hands-down, because they manage
>to tie namespaces (and modules) into the object model so nicely. Traits
>better than Interfaces? Well that remains to be seen.
Interfaces in Java are mostly just a pain IMO. They provide a few extra
protections here and there, and give the programmer hints as he browses the
code, but since you can't add a default implementation to them they just
enforce a certain level of code duplication. At least in my experience and
most of the Java programmers I know (admittedly not the whole world).
So from a usefulness point of view I think Traits already should be better,
and once the tools support them they will give the same hints the Java
implementation does at least.
_________________________________________________________________
Dont miss your chance to WIN 10 hours of private jet travel from Microsoft®
Office Live http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0540002499mrt/direct/01/
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|