[rust-dev] "Virtual fn" is a bad idea
uzytkownik2 at gmail.com
Tue Mar 11 14:15:58 PDT 2014
On Tue, 2014-03-11 at 13:44 -0700, Patrick Walton wrote:
> On 3/11/14 1:42 PM, Daniel Micay wrote:
> > Existing object systems like COM, DOM and gobject are worth looking at,
> > but Rust shouldn't bend over backwards to support them. They're legacy
> > technologies and while interacting with them is important, I don't think
> > it should result in any extra complexity being added to Rust.
> We have to support the technologies that are in use in a pleasant way,
> or else Rust will not be practical. Regardless of your feelings about
> existing OO systems, Rust has to support them well.
> So far nobody in this thread has demonstrated an understanding of the
> constraints here. Traits are simply not sufficient to model the DOM, for
Could you elaborate on DOM? I saw it referred a few times but I haven't
seen any details. I wrote simple bindings to libxml2 dom
(https://github.com/uzytkownik/xml-rs - warning - I wrote it while I was
learning ruby) and I don't think there was a problem of OO - main
problem was mapping libxml memory management and rust's one [I gave up
with namespaces but with native rust dom implementation it would be
possible to solve in nicer way]. Of course - I might've been at too
Regarding existing OO systems - Haskell interops with few of them (like
gtk+ for example) using typeclasses without problems I know of. Possible
next stage would be modelling the same hierarchy but since most systems
use multiple inheritance in one form or another it would not help much.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the Rust-dev