Nick Sabalausky, el 18 de abril a las 02:19 me escribiste: > "Leandro Lucarella" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... > > Nick Sabalausky, el 17 de abril a las 16:48 me escribiste: > >> "Leandro Lucarella" <[email protected]> wrote in message > >> news:[email protected]... > >> > Steven Schveighoffer, el 17 de abril a las 11:27 me escribiste: > >> >> > >> >> Sure, but what is the reason to need dynamic methods? I'm just trying > >> >> to > >> >> understand the usefulness of it. > >> > > >> > RPC is an example that comes into mind > >> > > >> > There is plenty of magic you can do with dynamic methods. Just try > >> > a dynamic language and see =) > >> > >> But is there any that can't be done with a dispatch function? > > > > You can write anything even with brainfuck. There are no discussion about > > what's possible and what's not, we are just talking about syntax. I hope > > the "it can be done" argument stop poping out because we all agree that > > it's possible to do everything right now. The question is *how* you can do > > it. > > > > Please, please, please, let's not delve into the "everything can be done" > argument. It only holds for a limited domain (theoretical turing machines > and turing computable problems, ie theoretical computability), which this > discussion is already well outside of. You can't rewrite Firefox in > brainfuck in 3 hours. You can't write a worthwhile embedded OS entirely in > JavaScript. You can't write a gameboy app to compute the movements of all > the particles in the universe until the end of time and have it run to > completion in three seconds. You can't. You can't. You can't. Can't can't > can't can't can't. Of course there are things that can't be done. > > Obviously we're all well aware that computability has nothing to do with > this discussion, so I really don't see why you've brought it up. As you > said, the question is how we compute whatever we're computing and how we > write the code to do so. And there absolutely are indeed certain how's under > certain conditions that *cannot* be done. > > And you did say "There is plenty of magic you can do with dynamic methods", > right? You don't want me to misuse the "it's possible to do everything" > argument to respond "If there's plenty of magic you can do with dynamic > methods, and everything is possible, then I can do all the same magic > without anything dynamic", do you? So please, please, please, let's never, > ever, ever, ever, ever get into the "everything can be done" again unless we > really are entirely within the bounds of theoretical computability.
Nice speech. > So now, let's try this again: > What is this usefulness you speak of that traditional dynamic methods and/or > opDotSrc dynamic methods have that is more useful than a dispatch method? Uniform (and better) syntax. It's just about that. -- Leandro Lucarella (luca) | Blog colectivo: http://www.mazziblog.com.ar/blog/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUNTAN FIRMAS Y HUELLAS POR EL CACHORRO CONDENADO A MUERTE... -- Crónica TV
