[OT] modules vs filenames in "module-name == filename" package systems

[Todd VanderVeen]

== Quote from Nick Sabalausky (a at a.a)'s article
> In a language that has a package system that forces package names to be the
> same as the directory name, and module names to be the same the file name
> (Such as Java, but not D): What is the point of having packages/modules
> instead of just simply importing by a relative filepath? Is it just so that
> it's consistent with refering to a symbol by it's fully-qualified name, or
> forcibly disallowing absolute paths when importing, or are there other
> reasons?
> -------------------------------
> Not sent from an iPhone.

Java supports mobile code. Class loaders can resolve code over the network, not
against a relative filesystem. The Java package naming convention is based on a
reversed URL for an organization (e.g. com.myorg.whatever), which is presumably
unique. It servers as a namespace mechanism.