On Tue, 2014-03-11 at 13:44 -0700, Patrick Walton wrote: > On 3/11/14 1:42 PM, Daniel Micay wrote: > > Existing object systems like COM, DOM and gobject are worth looking at, > > but Rust shouldn't bend over backwards to support them. They're legacy > > technologies and while interacting with them is important, I don't think > > it should result in any extra complexity being added to Rust. > > We have to support the technologies that are in use in a pleasant way, > or else Rust will not be practical. Regardless of your feelings about > existing OO systems, Rust has to support them well. > > So far nobody in this thread has demonstrated an understanding of the > constraints here. Traits are simply not sufficient to model the DOM, for > example. > > Patrick > >
Could you elaborate on DOM? I saw it referred a few times but I haven't seen any details. I wrote simple bindings to libxml2 dom (https://github.com/uzytkownik/xml-rs - warning - I wrote it while I was learning ruby) and I don't think there was a problem of OO - main problem was mapping libxml memory management and rust's one [I gave up with namespaces but with native rust dom implementation it would be possible to solve in nicer way]. Of course - I might've been at too early stage. Regarding existing OO systems - Haskell interops with few of them (like gtk+ for example) using typeclasses without problems I know of. Possible next stage would be modelling the same hierarchy but since most systems use multiple inheritance in one form or another it would not help much. Best regards
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list Rust-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
