On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 8:11 PM, Nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote: > I suspect that the one-to-one correspondence between classes and .class > files is mostly technical (e.g. Java's security model). The one-to-one > correspondence between class files and source files could probably be > relaxed, but at the expense of complicating the IDE and toolchain.
One class per object file isn't a problem - you can always .jar your classes if the proliferation of small files bothers you, and then it's just a different way of indexing the mound of code. One class per source file complicates the human's view in order to simplify the tools'. Not sure that's really worthwhile. > I never saw it as a problem, given that Java is fundamentally class-based: > there are no global variables or functions, only classes. Yeah... of course you can easily simulate globals with static members in a dedicated class, but it's slower. THIS, though, is where Java's security model comes in - you can assign security X to Globals1.class and security Y to Globals2.class, rather than trying to juggle security issues in a monolithic "globals" namespace. IMHO it's not worth the hassle, though. I'd rather just have globals. ChrisA -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
