> > > > And let me remind you that despite that NB implements FFI to speak with > C, > > it is not obliged to implement features of C language itself. It lets you > > speak with C programs, but not lets you write programs like in C (see the > > difference? :) > > I wasn't implying that implicit type conversion was a good thing that > needed implementing -- but just a bump if it hadn't needed attention > to it before when C did it automagically. > cheers -ben >
Of course, Ben, i understand that you may miss some of the feature(s), you get used to when doing things in C. But then consider what is involved to implement such feature because it means determining argument types at run time (at compile time it is impossible as well as 'compile once when it is invoked for the first time' that NB does ) That means that no matter how well you try, the implementation will suck.. because it will be very slow comparing to one that uses fixed-type fixed-argument number. My philosophy , in general, for programming is avoid bloat and inefficiency at all costs. When some feature requires bloat and going to be very inefficient, i simply saying 'No'. Especially at infrastructural level, which NB belongs to. Because one thing that you (of me) as implementer knows what is fast & cool and what is slow & inefficient, but then users come and start using things in a way you would never think your stuff will be ever used.. and start spreading inefficiency in their project(s). And more that that, once they get used to it, then you would be never able to remove it because it is there and everyone using it and some even loving it :) -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.
