On Sun, Oct 05, 2008 at 02:10:02PM +0000, Martin Stjernholm, Roxen IS @ Pike developers forum wrote: > Well, if you want them in pike they have to be objects.
i meant: aren't they objects in java too? > My point is that people might argue that mapping should have all those > variants, just as they argue that int should have an unsigned variant > (or that string should have an unshared variant, or that float should > have a longer variant, or whatever). > > All such arguments don't fit very well with the very deep integration > of the basic data types. One could possibly argue for modifying > (slightly) the behavior of one of these types, but adding another one > is basically a no-no. ahh, i see where this is going. essentially i think it can be argued that the basic types are designed to be simple and optimized, and having more such types would reduce that. > Worth noting that it wouldn't necessarily have to be that way, though. > The pike internals could have been built with a different architecture > so that all referenced data types (i.e. everything except native > integers and floats) are basically handled as objects, and all the > special behaviors of the type system and operators etc would be > controlled by properties in those objects (like in any pure object > oriented language). a pure object pike would indeed be nice :-) but wouldn't that cost optimization? greetings, martin.
