On Thursday, 10 July 2014 at 14:59:47 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:
YES(I am so glad some one else sees this)! This is basically what I have been saying all along. I hoped the immediate mode could be (1) and the retained mode could be (2/3) so that we could have both and not be limited, but that does not seem to be the direction it is going.


Oh, good then we are on the same frontier! :-) I thought you preferred an integrated approach. In my experience big frameworks tend to never get the APIs quite right, become tedious to work with, are difficult to adapt and seldom reach completion before they are out-of-date.

Much better with small, nimble, focused, polishable and performant IMO.

As it stands now, the direction that Aurora is taking seems to be an odd one IMHO. It is trying to be some thing in between (1) and (2/3) but I don't think that is useful to any one except maybe gui writers. That is what prompted me to post.

Right, I could use (1) and (2) , but have no obvious use case for (3)… So if Aurora does not partition the design space into independent parts, then I can't use it.

I think the library space needs to be partioned properly just like the language/memory space (nogc/gc) in order to appeal to interactive app writers.

Reply via email to