3 ms·
There are plenty of ways to skin that particular cat, and languages exist and are successful without modules or namespaces or classes (like C). It's just a que
by akeefer 15y ago
There are plenty of ways to skin that particular cat, and languages exist and are successful without modules or namespaces or classes (like C). It's just a question of whether or not the proposal in the article is an improvement upon anything, and I think it's reasonable to argue that no, it's not; people added those features to more recent languages because they solved real problems. Replacing explicit, required, rigid categorization with optional, flexible categorization isn't necessarily a win: it could just mean that people don't actually think about the problem very hard, and you end up being unable to find all the things related to X when you actually decide you need to understand how X works, because people didn't bother adding in the "X" tag in the function metadata to everything related to X.
- skrebbel 15y agoC has modules all right. A .c/.h file pair is essentially what many other languages call a module, and have all the problems that the modules in Joe Armstrong's fibonacci example also has.