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
|