Hi!
"J J" azreal1977@hotmail.com wrote:
Who denies it? I think the disconnect here is simply: you see this as
a
huge, almost show-stopper level problem. I personally see it as a minor annoyance that actually gets amazingly close while still looking nice
and
being explicit/obvious (i.e. less burden for the reader, and we all know code is read much more then written). I personally don't want the look
of
(to me) a beautiful language to change for pain I just don't feel.
It sounds like the "look" will be changed dramatically. We are only stuffing in '::' between the prefix and the rest. It is not a HUGE difference you know. :)
Well, I would just find seeing that everywhere in my smalltalk code very ugly. And looks of code do matter. We are trained from a young age not to look at ugly things more then we must.
Ehm, everywhere? I am not sure you have understood this proposal - the likely effect is that you will almost NEVER see any of those :: in actual code. You will see them in class definitions though.
Recall that they are only showed when there is a *conflict*.
Really? A huge pain? I agree that Traits are great etc, but I would not say that we had "huge pain" before we got them.
Yes, the inheritance model without them has some real problems. And finding a solution is tough. C++'s multiple inheritance? Too complicated. Java's interfaces? Too much work and code duplication. So now smalltalk has a solution, and IMO the best one.
As Avi posted - are you basing this on experience? Because most experienced Smalltalkers have almost never felt any pressing need for them. Sure, they are nifty - and they can improve on design - but a "huge pain"? Nah.
regards, Göran