Re: Unification of Methods and Functions
From: Greg Ewing (greg_at_cosc.canterbury.ac.nz)
Date: 05/24/04
- Next message: marduk: "Re: xchat plugin - stuck"
- Previous message: Arthur: "Re: terminological obscurity"
- In reply to: David MacQuigg: "Re: Unification of Methods and Functions"
- Next in thread: David MacQuigg: "Re: Unification of Methods and Functions"
- Reply: David MacQuigg: "Re: Unification of Methods and Functions"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 14:39:11 +1200
David MacQuigg wrote:
> Nobody seems to understand that lambda functions, static methods, etc.
> are clutter.
On the contrary, lambda has long been regarded as a wart
for various reasons. The best way to fix it is probably
to just drop it altogether. Nothing essential would be
lost.
We don't see static methods as clutter, because for the
most part we don't see them (i.e. we don't normally use
them). It would be no great loss if they were dropped,
too.
In neither case is it necessary to fundamentally
redesign the language to fix these, even if
they are regarded as problems.
-- Greg Ewing, Computer Science Dept, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand http://www.cosc.canterbury.ac.nz/~greg
- Next message: marduk: "Re: xchat plugin - stuck"
- Previous message: Arthur: "Re: terminological obscurity"
- In reply to: David MacQuigg: "Re: Unification of Methods and Functions"
- Next in thread: David MacQuigg: "Re: Unification of Methods and Functions"
- Reply: David MacQuigg: "Re: Unification of Methods and Functions"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|