Re-thinking D's modules
H. S. Teoh
hsteoh at quickfur.ath.cx
Thu Jul 19 10:46:57 PDT 2012
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 01:34:31PM +0200, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2012-07-19 11:18, foobar wrote:
>
> >I'd say that this is going in the wrong direction.
> >I read an article a while ago that was really enlightening about this
> >subject. The gist was that a module system is the wrong abstraction.
> >Modules are an artifact of procedural thinking in that they are global.
> >This hurts security, testability, etc.
> >
> >Here's the link: bracha.org/newspeak-modules.pdf
>
> Does it suggest a better approach?
[...]
I skimmed the paper briefly. Correct me if I'm misreading it, but the
approach it proposes is based on identifying classes with modules, and
requires that class names be dynamically bound; in particular,
superclasses are dynamically bound. I don't think this will work in D's
framework.
T
--
Дерево держится корнями, а человек - друзьями.
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list