Absolutely. I have contemplated giving it a try. But when I go look at
the mailing list, it looks like such a lonely place. I still might give
it a go. It looks interesting.
Jimmie
On 10/19/2017 05:20 PM, Ben Coman wrote:
btw, are you aware that Newspeak is developed on top of the CogVM that
Pharo, Squeak, Cuis all share?
cheers -ben
On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 12:27 AM, Jimmie Houchin <jlhouc...@gmail.com
<mailto:jlhouc...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I watched this video a year ago and was intrigued. I have not
thought about it deeply and do not know consequences of this
model. However, Gilad is a smart man who has thought deeply about
these things and has experienced consequences as a language
designer. But it does sound interesting and I wonder if it would
potentially be a solution to the namespace or modularity problems.
https://youtu.be/pM0Hz4pFDZM
He is talking about Newspeak in 2016 and what I refer to is its
use of Nested Classes.
No Global Namespace
No Global Variables
No Pool Variables
No Class Variables
No Class Instance Variables
I have no idea if it would work for Pharo or what would be
involved in implementing such. Or even if the community or leaders
would even care to explore that direction. I have not seen it
discussed here.
Just wanted to toss his discussion of these ideas into the arena
of ideas for Pharo.
Jimmie
On 10/13/2017 07:53 AM, Esteban A. Maringolo wrote:
2017-10-13 5:55 GMT-03:00 Norbert Hartl <norb...@hartl.name
<mailto:norb...@hartl.name>>:
Am 13.10.2017 um 10:24 schrieb stephan
<step...@stack.nl <mailto:step...@stack.nl>>:
On 13-10-17 09:55, Thierry Goubier wrote:
Because namespaces, by essence, come with serious
issues. I won't take
someone seriously on namespaces until he can cite
those faithfully.
Let's start with the misconception that namespaces are
about modularisation
+1
+1 to this as well.
Having modularization is like having security, very hard to
add them
later if you didn't include it in the original design.
I'm using VisualWorks these days, and I find its namespaces
something
more of a hassle than a real use.
If we could name Classes with a dot, that could solve most of what
namespaces are used for in practice: avoiding name colissions.
That's why most of the popular frameworks have prefixes like
Zn, WA,
RB, and so on and so forth. But now I'm used to prefixes, I
don't need
them. :)
Modularity is a different beast, if you look at how some
modules work
in JS, like AMD, you see that in practice they avoid collisions by
importin what they need from a module, and assign it to a
"namespace"
(it is not, but works as such), so they get modules first, and
namespacing later.
Regards,
Esteban.
