<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 11:17 AM, Igor Stasenko <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:siguctua@gmail.com" target="_blank">siguctua@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
What i really don't understand is why my opponents readily want to<br>
sacrifice the performance in order to deal with consequences of having<br>
complex systems, when its hard to reason about it,<br>
and at same time completely opposed to proposal of adding features<br>
which will help to reduce complexity in a first place, like adding<br>
slot for having arbitrary properties.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>You;re putting up a straw man. You *think* performance of immutability is an issue, but my experience tells me it isn't. I've implemented it before. So please stop raising an invalid objection.</div>
<div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Sounds, like you prefer to deal with consequences rather than with cause..<br></blockquote><div><br></div>
<div>Bah, humbug.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">--<br>
Best regards,<br>
Igor Stasenko.<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>best,<div>Eliot</div><br>