On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 3:17 PM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <al...@wirfs-brock.com>wrote:
> I'd argue that my pattern also supports #5 as IDE's can recognize the > pattern. An imperative class definition of all that most Smalltalk > implementations every had and they generally had fine IDEs. > I'm not a Smalltalker, but I thought Smalltalk IDEs were image-based and worked on the objects directly live in memory. At that point, it didn't matter how you generated a class: from text, imperatively, by PEEKing and POKEing bits in memory. That isn't true of most IDEs today that are just working on the program text itself. With today's editors, the textual format matters. (We might rightly lament that fact, but it does seem to be the field we've got to play on right now.) - bob > > #6 can be postponed if we can get 1-5 by other means, but there will be a > price to pay if two competing ways of defining classes have to be used in > ES.next.next. > > -- > Dr. Axel Rauschmayer > > a...@rauschma.de > twitter.com/rauschma > > home: rauschma.de > blog: 2ality.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > es-discuss@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > > > > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > es-discuss@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
