4 ms·
At first glance yes, but as always with Java when you dig under the hood you see tight coupling to bad ideas from the early 90s. Given the OO/Java mantra of dec
by fleitz 14y ago
At first glance yes, but as always with Java when you dig under the hood you see tight coupling to bad ideas from the early 90s. Given the OO/Java mantra of decoupling I'm not sure why the namespace is a consequence of the filepath they seem far too tightly integrated.
- eropple 14y agoAgreed - C# fixed this, though (by default it maps to the directory structure, but you can change this). Scala encourages Java-style packages but lets you put them wherever you want.
- lmm 14y agoI find that an irritating pain with scala, actually. I move a file from one directory to another, then spend ten minutes trying to figure out why lift still can't find the class, before the facepalm moment where I realise I didn't change the package declaration in the file.
- eropple 14y agoI agree that it's actually sort of stupid to allow it--I used the word choice I did intentionally, because C# 'fixed' it (its strong IDE support makes having files in different places pretty much impossible unless you want it to happen), but Scala isn't so lucky. At least I get it when I use IntelliJ, which doesn't even tell me before updating the package declaration. :) I use Play or a home-rolled solution based on vertx, though. so I don't have to worry so much about finding them.
- lmm 14y agoI hate magic package names; I'd far rather be using wicket, but I wanted good comet integration for this particular project.