4 ms·

I'm having such a hard time figuring out whether this is satirical. (My guess: It is.)

• Joker_vD 2y ago
  I know, right? > So you don't need to worry about functions floating around in a global namespace soup. Because having classes floating around in a global namespace soup is fundamentally different and should give no worries to anyone. Yet this was argument made in earnest back when arguments about Java's strengths and weaknesses were much more popular.
  • lmz 2y ago
    There's always going to be a namespace soup but at least in Java there's only one kind of thing in the soup.
    • Joker_vD 2y ago
      The famous "anemic namespace soup" language design pattern.
      • lazide 2y ago
        Hey, it could be Perl!
      • lmz 2y ago
        With the 1:1 intended correspondence of (public?) class names to source file names I get how that could be considered a feature for ease of use, compared to C++ where any file could define any name.