My 10c on namespaces
I've been lurking with interest ever since Rob mentioned that he would be
attempting a
solution to the namespaces issues in Euphoria 2.3. Taking a step back from
the proposals:
Whatever the technical syntax Rob goes for, I hope that these factors are
considered, in order:
1. Clarity.
2. Flexibility
3. Redundancy of previous code
Clarity comes first, because its of vital importance for the program creator
(and anyone else)
to understand what the intent of the code is. Hopefully with a minimum of
comments or
reading manuals. A silly example: Personally I don't code in the format "a
+= 1" because:
a) Its more obscure than "a = a + 1" and therefore harder to understand,
particularly for newbies.
b) It appears to be a "neat trick" from another language. Why? Who are we
trying to impress?
c) Using it makes old code break, for virtually no gain.
d) Why are we wasting Rob's time, altering his parser for something so
inconsequential?
We are using Euphoria because it is clear, easy, stable, quick etc. Not
because it is the same as
something else.
Flexibility - as in the solution/syntax should allow for as many factors as
possible. Eg, have a
solution that elegantly (and clearly) handles subsequent references to a
variable as the second
reference. Don't build in restrictions that are not required. Do have
meaningful error messages
and options that can be used on demand.
Redundancy.. ie breaking of old code is less important then the
abovementioned two factors
IMHO, despite argument to the contrary . Why?
a) Euphoria must move forward. Using an obscure solution that does not break
old code may set us
up for a headache that will never go away. The listserv will abound with
the same tired explanations
of why it works that way. Answering the "Why couldn't Euphoria have done
this easier (CLEARER)"
and "Why does this (seemingly obvious) code not work" will be right up
there with the "How do
I get off this list" used to be, or "deleteItem does not work"... Ring a
bell, Derek ?
b) How much old code do we REALLY use, both in bytes and in persons doing
it? With the
exception of Win32lib, I would suggest not much. IMHO those skilled
enough to include others'
code, will be skilled enough to make the required changes. I submit that
most old code written
by others is purely reference material.
c) Nothing is stopping us from binding old code and using the executable,
until such time as we
get around to correcting the breakages brought about by the namespace
solution. Even simply
persisting with the old release of Euphoria would work.
Rob, how about putting the suggestions up on rapideuphoria.com , and
allowing licenced users
to vote? Each methodology to have the pros and cons mentioned.
You don't have to go for the most popular of course ;)
Regards,
Alan (now ducking for cover)
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
