Denis Koroskin wrote:
The proposal sound reasonable, but it's hard to follow. I really can't
comment on it because I didn't fully understand it.
[...]
I believe your proposal suffers from it, too. For example, when reading
an introduction, I see this:
┌──────────────┐
│ Overview │
├──────────────┼─────────────────┬─────────────┬──────────────┐
│ Hierarchy │ Description │ Ownership │ Transitivity │
├──────────────┼─────────────────┼─────────────┼──────────────┤
│ scope │ super-interface │ unknown │ deep† │
│ ││└─stack │ current scope │ stack │ implicit │
│ │└──local │ object default │ local-heap │ deep† │
│ ├───shared │ thread safe │ shared-heap │ deep† │
│ └───mobile │ unique objects │ shared-heap │ shallow │
└──────────────┴─────────────────┴─────────────┴──────────────┘
You tell that you introduce 5 different qualifiers but you don't explain
why are they needed. Why not 4, not 3? What problem each of them solve?
All I can do is guess and be proven wrong, that's the most frustrating.
I agree. I also find the article hard to follow. I'm seeing some
features discussed and all of a sudden "this solves that problem". I
didn't have the time for a closer read, but I think I'll have a hard
time understanding how this proposal works.
Andrei
