Re: Re: Re: class proposal 2

"Greg Ewing" <[email protected]> wrote

> I wouldn't say people are "scared". I'd say they're unconvinced that
> the classless approach has significant benefits over the classful
> one. So far I've seen very little evidence of any such benefits. If
> they do exist, you'll have to do a better job of identifying them and
> pointing them out if you want people to take Prothon seriously.

I will admit that I am surprised that many of the advantages of Prothon's
prototypes have turned out to be non-advantages compared to Python because
Python is more dynamic than I thought.

If Prothon's prototypes turn out to have no significant advantage or
disadvantage that I can tell right now then I will still stick with
Prototypes because of the simpler foundation.  I also have plans for them
for the future.  I can't say now for sure that they will make a difference
in the future but I have to include them now or I won't ever have them.

I do know of some small advantages.  Do you know of any disadvantages of
prototypes other than the education and marketing problem?

> I don't think that adding classes on top solely to make newcomers
> feel "comfortable" is a good idea.

I have never proposed doing classes for only that reason.

> Language features should exist
> if and only if they provide something truly useful.

Agreed.

> In the current
> proposals, there is too much overlap between prototype and class
> functionality to justify having both.

There have been many proposals and some overlap and some don't.  Paul's
proposal is not a class proposal and has no overlap.  My 3.1 class proposal
has no overlap because it is only a design-by-contract proposal.  I am
arguing for these two right now.

I would really appreciate it if you could look at these two and comment.