Plus, namespaces are difficult to implement. It could tear your class library to pieces
Brad Selfridge 913-269-2385 > On Oct 12, 2017, at 9:10 AM, Dimitris Chloupis <kilon.al...@gmail.com> wrote: > > For me there is also question 3) How closely they are related to the > bootstrap project > > namespaces afterall is all about modularity which is the goal of bootstrap as > well . no ? > So maybe we should not view them as a separate project and more as boostrap > v2 , after v1 is released of course > Proably Pharo 9 or 10 should be a good period to focus on them. Bootstrap > will have matured and stabilize and then we can go the extra step of > namespaces. > > Also in Delphi , besides namespaces which is purely a language construct we > had "Components" , think of them as namespaces but meant to work convenient > in a IDE enviroment. I really like it as an idea and Delphi based its whole > library on components. Again pure objects of course, with some metadata for > the IDE to use, like category, dependencies etc > > So if namespaces is the bridge between bootstrap and the language , > Components can be the bridge between bootsrap and the IDE , because their > role was to assembly libraries together via drag and drop and make code like > legos. So it can be Components containing namespaces, namespaces containing > objects. > > Thats one idea that worked well enough in practice to make Borland very > profitable. It applied it both in Delphin and C++ Builder products. The > library was called VCL (Visual Component Library) and still exists today > after decades of use. > > Metacello also can come to this game on the basis that nowdays everything is > online , Components could abstract git and other version controls and offer a > convenient drag and drop from the github directly to the comforts of you > image with no extra tool needed like Iceberg. > > You can then use Iceberg to commit back to the repo. > > It can really come together quite nicely if Components function as in Delphi, > a common protocol for object to communicate for IDE convenience, without > braking the existing legacy code in Pharo. > > Well thats just an idea, based on my personal experience. > >> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 3:53 PM Sean P. DeNigris <s...@clipperadams.com> >> wrote: >> horrido wrote >> > Having separate namespaces would be really good. >> > VisualWorks has them. Why not Pharo? >> >> I can't remember ever hearing disagreement on this subject. It seems the >> only questions have been: 1) how to do them *right*, and 2) where they fall >> on the endless prioritized todo list >> >> >> >> ----- >> Cheers, >> Sean >> -- >> Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html >>
