> One reason I brought them up now was that Java-style classes were > discussed. Significant parts of this class functionality could > instead be offered by third-party library vendors using these > keywords. We'd get more variation, greater freedom, and much > faster adaptability, than if it's defined in a standards body.
At the great expense of interoperability. In the grand scheme of things, I don't need greater freedom, variation, or adaptability in the way that I define a class. Especially if it means I have to tack on many kilobytes of library code to use widget X, and then many more Kb's to use widget Y, and cross my fingers they don't eat eachother. Much better to have a single built in implementation for that feature that everyone codes against- So I can use code without having to include any libraries. The end user ultimately doesn't care that you used a clever class library, only that the application works, is fast, easy to use, and bug free. Language features should be aimed squarely at helping programmers achieve those goals, and I don't see how building a new tower of babel helps. But you know, just my opinion as a lowly developer. _______________________________________________ Es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
