> No. And your supposition is not actually true anyway. Your > pseudo-constructor can throw an exception if certain conditions are > met, thus preventing use of createObject(). You can use the metadata > of the object as "static" data and implement full fledged singletons, > for example.
Interesting idea. I like it. > > I also think you're over-analyzing an academic issue that has no basis > in reality - which is essentially what happens in Gilad's thread... > the "who cares?" responses. Sean, let me ask you a question. You've been involved in language design in the past. Given that machine code is already Turing complete, high level languages aren't about expanding what's possible. Language design turns into the exploration of abstractions and debates about how things "should" work - how to achieve more DWIM. Are you just over all of that - or are the abstractions that I'm interested in exploring just spectacularly non-interesting to you? A lot of your responses are along the lines of "that's a non-issue because you can do xyz instead" - always very practical and educational - but, as a language designer, do you actually think xyz is a good idea? > Can you state a *specific* problem that you think needs to be solved > rather than appealing to abstract The specific problem is, for me, lack of DWIM. It's entirely personal - CF makes me repeatedly flip in and out of object-think, which due to my lack of mental agility causes me grief. I don't claim that CF needs fixing - I'm happy to fix me instead, in which endeavour I appreciate your contributions. Jaime Metcher You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, please follow the instructions at http://www.cfczone.org/listserv.cfm CFCDev is supported by: Katapult Media, Inc. We are cool code geeks looking for fun projects to rock! www.katapultmedia.com An archive of the CFCDev list is available at www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
