Fully dynamic d by opDotExp overloading

[Leandro Lucarella]

Nick Sabalausky, el 18 de abril a las 02:19 me escribiste:
>  "Leandro Lucarella" <llucax at gmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:20090417231958.GB27625 at homero.springfield.home...
> > Nick Sabalausky, el 17 de abril a las 16:48 me escribiste:
> >> "Leandro Lucarella" <llucax at gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:20090417191634.GA15139 at homero.springfield.home...
> >> > Steven Schveighoffer, el 17 de abril a las 11:27 me escribiste:
> >> >>
> >> >> Sure, but what is the reason to need dynamic methods?  I'm just trying 
> >> >> to
> >> >> understand the usefulness of it.
> >> >
> >> > RPC is an example that comes into mind
> >> >
> >> > There is plenty of magic you can do with dynamic methods. Just try
> >> > a dynamic language and see =)
> >>
> >> But is there any that can't be done with a dispatch function?
> >
> > You can write anything even with brainfuck. There are no discussion about
> > what's possible and what's not, we are just talking about syntax. I hope
> > the "it can be done" argument stop poping out because we all agree that
> > it's possible to do everything right now. The question is *how* you can do
> > it.
> >
> 
> Please, please, please, let's not delve into the "everything can be done" 
> argument. It only holds for a limited domain (theoretical turing machines 
> and turing computable problems, ie theoretical computability), which this 
> discussion is already well outside of. You can't rewrite Firefox in 
> brainfuck in 3 hours. You can't write a worthwhile embedded OS entirely in 
> JavaScript. You can't write a gameboy app to compute the movements of all 
> the particles in the universe until the end of time and have it run to 
> completion in three seconds. You can't. You can't. You can't. Can't can't 
> can't can't can't. Of course there are things that can't be done.
> 
> Obviously we're all well aware that computability has nothing to do with 
> this discussion, so I really don't see why you've brought it up. As you 
> said, the question is how we compute whatever we're computing and how we 
> write the code to do so. And there absolutely are indeed certain how's under 
> certain conditions that *cannot* be done.
> 
> And you did say "There is plenty of magic you can do with dynamic methods", 
> right? You don't want me to misuse the "it's possible to do everything" 
> argument to respond "If there's plenty of magic you can do with dynamic 
> methods, and everything is possible, then I can do all the same magic 
> without anything dynamic", do you? So please, please, please, let's never, 
> ever, ever, ever, ever get into the "everything can be done" again unless we 
> really are entirely within the bounds of theoretical computability.

Nice speech.

> So now, let's try this again:
> What is this usefulness you speak of that traditional dynamic methods and/or 
> opDotSrc dynamic methods have that is more useful than a dispatch method? 

Uniform (and better) syntax. It's just about that.

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (luca) | Blog colectivo: http://www.mazziblog.com.ar/blog/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUNTAN FIRMAS Y HUELLAS POR EL CACHORRO CONDENADO A MUERTE...
	-- Crónica TV