Re: OOBit
[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Date Index]
[
Thread Index]
- Subject: Re: OOBit
- From: Tim Mensch <tim-lua-l@...>
- Date: 2010年9月29日 20:41:47 -0600
On 9/29/2010 5:52 PM, Peter Sommerfeld wrote:
It is not hard if you stick with your preferred idioms. You cannot
have both, flexibility and simplicity, choices come for a price. And
it is not apologistic if I prefer a small, fast and flexible language
over an inflexible one with a fixed set of policies and rules.
Interesting example; in my opinion, adding the OOBit would actually
increase the flexibility of Lua. Adding the ability to flag some table
functions as object oriented, which would make them always behave as
expected, means that you can either use the traditional access methods,
where everything is explicit, or you can use the new semantics, where
users are less likely to trip up.
If it turned out that doing this would hurt the performance of normal
table/function calls, or alternately added more than a few dozen lines
of code to the code base, I'd change my position. I also want Lua to be
small and fast.
But if it CAN be done with a minimal patch that doesn't hurt performance
in any significant way, then I don't see how it does anything but
improve the usability of Lua, and reduce the headaches of new users.
Tim
- References:
- Re: Re: OOBit, Gunnar Zötl
- Re: Re: OOBit, Nilson
- Re: OOBit, KHMan
- Re: OOBit, Nilson
- Re: OOBit, Christopher Eykamp
- Re: OOBit, Peter Sommerfeld
- Re: OOBit, Christopher Eykamp
- Re: OOBit, Peter Sommerfeld
- Re: OOBit, Tim Mensch
- Re: OOBit, Peter Sommerfeld