zen at zenpsycho.com
Sun Aug 31 17:22:15 PDT 2008
> One reason I brought them up now was that Java-style classes were
> discussed. Significant parts of this class functionality could
> instead be offered by third-party library vendors using these
> keywords. We'd get more variation, greater freedom, and much
> faster adaptability, than if it's defined in a standards body.
At the great expense of interoperability. In the grand scheme of
things, I don't need greater freedom, variation, or adaptability in
the way that I define a class. Especially if it means I have to tack
on many kilobytes of library code to use widget X, and then many more
Kb's to use widget Y, and cross my fingers they don't eat eachother.
Much better to have a single built in implementation for that feature
that everyone codes against- So I can use code without having to
include any libraries. The end user ultimately doesn't care that you
used a clever class library, only that the application works, is fast,
easy to use, and bug free. Language features should be aimed squarely
at helping programmers achieve those goals, and I don't see how
building a new tower of babel helps.
But you know, just my opinion as a lowly developer.
More information about the Es-discuss