>From: Andreas Raab <andreas.raab at gmx.de>
>Reply-To: 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: election details *PLEASE READ*
>Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 22:05:50 -0800
>
>J J wrote:
>>Namespaces ok, but the way they have been done is not always that great.  
>>Modules are pretty much the same thing, and interfaces?  No.  Traits are 
>>much better then interfaces imo.
>
>Modules is one area where IMO Java shines. Not necessarily because of the 
>language part but because of the whole ClassLoader/JAR/Applet pipeline 
>(just run Dan's SqueakOnJava in the browser and then think about what must 
>be true to be able to handle that in a reasonably secure fashion). It's the 
>best deployment solution I am aware of.

Ah, I wasn't thinking about them from that angle.  Good point.

>In the namespace area I think Python wins hands-down, because they manage 
>to tie namespaces (and modules) into the object model so nicely. Traits 
>better than Interfaces? Well that remains to be seen.

Interfaces in Java are mostly just a pain IMO.  They provide a few extra 
protections here and there, and give the programmer hints as he browses the 
code, but since you can't add a default implementation to them they just 
enforce a certain level of code duplication.  At least in my experience and 
most of the Java programmers I know (admittedly not the whole world).

So from a usefulness point of view I think Traits already should be better, 
and once the tools support them they will give the same hints the Java 
implementation does at least.

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t miss your chance to WIN 10 hours of private jet travel from Microsoft® 
Office Live http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0540002499mrt/direct/01/