4 ms·

> Circularity between modules is very common and natural In theory, but in practice it isn't because there are very few language that do not see software desig

by 9rx 2y ago

> Circularity between modules is very common and natural In theory, but in practice it isn't because there are very few language that do not see software design as being hierarchical. That stems primarily from most languages being based on a hierarchical filesystem, which imposes a hierarchical view of the world at the very core. Circular references in languages that are hierarchical end up being very awkward. There are a small handful of languages that reject all things hierarchical, including the filesystem, but they are few and far between and most probably have never heard of them and they certainly aren't what you are going to find in production. For better or worse, we've settled on a hierarchical model.

wavemode 2y ago
> in practice it isn't because there are very few language that do not see software design as being hierarchical It has been possible since the days of C (via forward declarations / header files) for two compilation units to call functionality in each other circularly. Java and many other languages have followed suit. I don't buy the argument that it is some sort of new or esoteric thing for a compiler to allow this.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- 9rx 2y ago
  Is there a reason you decided to reply after only reading the first sentence? This off-topic straw man you have imaged doesn't exist.
  - wavemode 2y ago
    You're going to have to elaborate in words what your actual problem with my comment is. It's not clear to me why you believe I only read the first sentence, nor in what way I am addressing a strawman. It is perhaps you who have misunderstood my point, rather than the other way around. But, again, you've provided not enough details for me to ascertain this.
    - 9rx 2y ago
      Your point is understood, and nobody would disagree with it, but your point is towards a straw man. Nobody ever in the history of computing has made this "argument" you have imagined. If you honestly believe that you didn't make it up arbitrarily, where did you get it from?
      - wavemode 2y ago
        The argument I mentioned: > I don't buy the argument that it is some sort of new or esoteric thing for a compiler to allow this Where I got it from: > there are very few language that do not see software design as being hierarchical > Circular references in languages that are hierarchical end up being very awkward. > There are a small handful of languages that reject all things hierarchical, including the filesystem, but they are few and far between and most probably have never heard of them and they certainly aren't what you are going to find in production My point being that it is not "awkward" at all for a language to allow circular references between modules. It is only awkward in languages that make it awkward (like Go does). In C (a language over 50 years old) and Java (one of the most widely used languages in the world) it's the most straightforward and natural thing in the world. So it's certainly not correct to say that it is "awkward" in all languages except ones nobody has ever heard of (aka "esoteric", the term I used in my comment). So yeah I'm still not fully following how I failed to address your comment, or attacked a strawman. Based on what you're saying now, it's clear that you feel I have misunderstood the point you were trying to make. But I can say that it certainly was not based on a single sentence, or a lack of reading on my part. Probably just a confusion of terminology. So, what did you actually mean?
        9rx 2y ago
        > Where I got it from: Which must mean that you only read the first sentence and dreamt up the rest, or didn't read it at all, else you'd know there was nothing said about circular imports being esoteric. In fact, the comment you originally replied to wouldn't work if they were esoteric. > It is only awkward in languages that make it awkward (like Go does). How could it be awkward in Go? It doesn't support circular references. It cannot be awkward – it isn't possible at all! This was already told in earlier comments, so how did you manage to get here not knowing that other than by not reading the comments?

by 9rx 2y ago

wavemode 2y ago

> in practice it isn't because there are very few language that do not see software design as being hierarchical It has been possible since the days of C (via forward declarations / header files) for two compilation units to call functionality in each other circularly. Java and many other languages have followed suit. I don't buy the argument that it is some sort of new or esoteric thing for a compiler to allow this.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
9rx 2y ago
Is there a reason you decided to reply after only reading the first sentence? This off-topic straw man you have imaged doesn't exist.
- wavemode 2y ago
  You're going to have to elaborate in words what your actual problem with my comment is. It's not clear to me why you believe I only read the first sentence, nor in what way I am addressing a strawman. It is perhaps you who have misunderstood my point, rather than the other way around. But, again, you've provided not enough details for me to ascertain this.
  - 9rx 2y ago
    Your point is understood, and nobody would disagree with it, but your point is towards a straw man. Nobody ever in the history of computing has made this "argument" you have imagined. If you honestly believe that you didn't make it up arbitrarily, where did you get it from?
    - wavemode 2y ago
      The argument I mentioned: > I don't buy the argument that it is some sort of new or esoteric thing for a compiler to allow this Where I got it from: > there are very few language that do not see software design as being hierarchical > Circular references in languages that are hierarchical end up being very awkward. > There are a small handful of languages that reject all things hierarchical, including the filesystem, but they are few and far between and most probably have never heard of them and they certainly aren't what you are going to find in production My point being that it is not "awkward" at all for a language to allow circular references between modules. It is only awkward in languages that make it awkward (like Go does). In C (a language over 50 years old) and Java (one of the most widely used languages in the world) it's the most straightforward and natural thing in the world. So it's certainly not correct to say that it is "awkward" in all languages except ones nobody has ever heard of (aka "esoteric", the term I used in my comment). So yeah I'm still not fully following how I failed to address your comment, or attacked a strawman. Based on what you're saying now, it's clear that you feel I have misunderstood the point you were trying to make. But I can say that it certainly was not based on a single sentence, or a lack of reading on my part. Probably just a confusion of terminology. So, what did you actually mean?
      - 9rx 2y ago
        > Where I got it from: Which must mean that you only read the first sentence and dreamt up the rest, or didn't read it at all, else you'd know there was nothing said about circular imports being esoteric. In fact, the comment you originally replied to wouldn't work if they were esoteric. > It is only awkward in languages that make it awkward (like Go does). How could it be awkward in Go? It doesn't support circular references. It cannot be awkward – it isn't possible at all! This was already told in earlier comments, so how did you manage to get here not knowing that other than by not reading the comments?