On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 01:34:31PM +0200, Jacob Carlborg wrote: > On 2012-07-19 11:18, foobar wrote: > > >I'd say that this is going in the wrong direction. > >I read an article a while ago that was really enlightening about this > >subject. The gist was that a module system is the wrong abstraction. > >Modules are an artifact of procedural thinking in that they are global. > >This hurts security, testability, etc. > > > >Here's the link: bracha.org/newspeak-modules.pdf > > Does it suggest a better approach? [...]
I skimmed the paper briefly. Correct me if I'm misreading it, but the approach it proposes is based on identifying classes with modules, and requires that class names be dynamically bound; in particular, superclasses are dynamically bound. I don't think this will work in D's framework. T -- Дерево держится корнями, а человек - друзьями.
