A little namespace "proposal"
Martin Wirblat
sql.mawi at t-link.de
Tue Apr 6 13:13:02 UTC 2004
Hi Göran,
>> Namespaces may lower the signal to noise ratio of our source code.
>
>Again - though I assume you read it - note how the "rendering"
>mechanism I described will always render references in their "minimal
>form". If the image only contains unique class names (or other named
>objects) then all references will be unqualified when you read the
>source.
The main reason why the signal to noise ratio drops, is that people
will refrain from giving things more descriptive names. That the
source code may or may not get cluttered with meaningless information
( the namespace info ) is secondary. So we are losing the signal
independently of the noise becoming louder.
>> Given how fast people here are starting to talk about nested
>> namespaces or "partitioning" the whole image into many namespaces,
>> I guess implementing namespaces will not automagically "clean up"
>> names in the future, it will probably do the opposite.
>
>My proposal was a flat list of Namespaces. No nesting. And how many
>Namespaces we would use for our standard packages is also up for
>discussion.
Yes, but I just wanted to repeat your warnings about what will "crash
down the hill on us". Your idea of having many small namespaces in the
Full image showed me, how fast one can become intrigued by the
"coolness" of namespaces. ( Starting out critical and then becoming
converted without recognizing it. Well, not really ;-)
My gut feeling was and is that the official Full image should be only
one single namespace. Of course the question then arises, what the
goal of such namespaces is. And surely this will have some drawbacks,
but it will ensure best that people try to name meaningful. Perhaps it
will even invite to merge similar classes. As you said, namespaces
lure people into reinventing the wheel all the time.
>Anyway, now my posting sounds like a "defense" but I am not sure you
>really were critical at all. :) :)
No, I just hooked into your post at what I consider to be the culprit
of namespaces. Your proposal seems to take care of this special
problem, but I think the question is still: Are the advantages greater
than the problems?
Special note: I would drop "shy". It complicates things ( bitten by
the hidden ) and is a step in the wrong direction, it allows the lazy
programmer to circumvent the search for a proper name.
regards
Martin
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|