Quick comparison of two Namespaces proposals

Brent Pinkney brent at zamail.co.za
Wed Sep 19 05:19:24 UTC 2007


Hi Chris,

> Even in todays phat images, name collisions are the 1% case, so the
> solution should have the benefit of being invisible 99% of the time,
> and handling the problem as simply and elegantly as possible that 1%
> of the time.  Göran's approach seems to do this.

You could argue that for most of the constructs in the image. 

Almost all classes use the default Metaclass hierarchy. Should we remove those?
Almost all classes are pretty shallow subclasses of Object: Should we limit the image to a depth of 3 or 4?

What is requires is a really eleganct unconstrined solution which is transparent for 99% of the cases but entirely open to modifications for the 1%.
The Metaclass implementation is a good example of how this can be done. Göran's solution does not satisfy these criteria.

Examples:
1. VisualAge's decision to use C-syle call stacks instead of proper objects prevented the use of continuations. This platform cannot not foster innovations like Seaside.
2. Squeak needs proper BlockClosures: sure BlockContexts suffice for 99% of the time, but they are not the timeless solution.
3. MetaclassTalk

You are correct that the solution must be transparent in 99% of the cases.

Cheers

Brent



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list