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they are out-of-date.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
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.