Am 15.02.2005 um 16:44 schrieb Cees de Groot:

> For example, coming from <uh oh...> Java, I though namespaces quite 
> logical. Python, Perl - the other languages I used at the time, also 
> have it. Then I came to Squeak and found it lacking in this area. It 
> hurt. Then I moved on to VW, and made copious use of its namespace 
> features. When coming back to Squeak, boy was I glad that I was 
> relieved of the burden of having to think about namespaces! Prefixes 
> rock compared to VW's namespaces.
>
> Now, that doesn't mean to say that every implementation of namespaces 
> is bad, but it did lead me to re-ask the question. Do we need 
> namespaces?
>
> And if I then consider that:
> a) you only need to have one Socket, and if it doesn't work, fix it;
> b) I actually don't mind prefixes at all;
> c) the way forward to really really large systems is probably 
> partitioning in processes/islands/subimages/vats/networks/... where 
> cross-partition communication should ideally be based on as little 
> naming as possible and more on abstract things like UUID's (or in a 
> completely orthogonal naming space like URL's - just an example, I'm 
> *not* proposing to replace class names with URL's ;));
> d) conflicting names can be talked about and resolved on a human 
> level. I usually prefer human solutions over technological solutions, 
> and Smalltalk's philosophy seems to be with me there;
> my current position is that we can do very well without them.

Cees, you've got that point for 100% (and more). I'm developing in Java 
and Python since a long time. After my private switch to Squeak I 
really enjoy that simple solution of prefixes. Yes, may be it is not 
state of the art and some people may not see the advantage. But I like 
KISS and YAGNI and from my point of view prefixes are simple and I 
don't need namespaces.

Thx again.

mue

--
**
** Frank Mueller / Oldenburg / Germany
**
** frank at mweb.de / http://frank.mweb.de
**