On 1 September 2013 17:46, Nick Sabalausky < seewebsitetocontac...@semitwist.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Sep 2013 06:45:48 +0200 > "Kapps" <opantm2+s...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sunday, 1 September 2013 at 02:05:51 UTC, Manu wrote: > > > One more thing: > > > I'll just pick one language complaint from the weekend. > > > It is how quickly classes became disorganised and difficult to > > > navigate > > > (like Java and C#). > > > We all wanted to ability to define class member functions > > > outside the class > > > definition: > > > class MyClass > > > { > > > void method(); > > > } > > > > > > void MyClass.method() > > > { > > > //... > > > } > > > > > > It definitely cost us time simply trying to understand the > > > class layout > > > visually (ie, when IDE support is barely available). > > > You don't need to see the function bodies in the class > > > definition, you want > > > to quickly see what a class has and does. > > > > This isn't something I've found to be an issue personally, but I > > suppose it's a matter of what you're used to. Since I'm used to > > C#, I haven't had problems with this. I've always felt that this > > was the IDE's job, personally. That being said, perhaps .di files > > could help with this? > > I see it as the job of doc generators. > Why complicate the issue? What's wrong with readable code?