Squeak and Namespaces

J J azreal1977 at hotmail.com
Fri Dec 1 18:38:00 UTC 2006


>From: Göran Krampe <goran at krampe.se>
>Reply-To: goran at krampe.se, 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: Squeak and Namespaces
>Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 08:59:10 +0100 (CET)
>
> > 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.

>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.

_________________________________________________________________
Talk now to your Hotmail contacts with Windows Live Messenger. 
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwme0020000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://get.live.com/messenger/overview




More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list