On Mon, 28 Jan 2013, Paul Ishenin wrote:
28.01.13, 21:20, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
Different people see different needs in language. There is nothing bad
not to use and not understand some of the language features.
tatata, you should always understand everything :)
Very weak argument :) In your work you use system APIs and other frameworks
which are made in C, C++ or assembler. I believe you don't understand
everything and if you don't - you use the reference if needed. The same way
with pascal - if you don't want to learn new features then use libraries as
black boxes but if you need then use a reference.
I can understand the argument for libraries, but not for the programming
language itself.
I would use anonymouse methods in pascal - I use them in javascript
when I need to perform something asynchronosly.
Since you can do the same with simple named methods too, I see no need
for creating the readibility horror that results of it.
It is a readability horror when for injecting a small piece of code as
anonymouse method in place where it is needed you *must* declare a new named
method (which will no be used anywhere else) few screens up or down.
Absolutely. You have local procedures for exactly this reason.
That is what Pascal stands for.
I use Anonymous methods in Javascript too, but in the majority of cases I
end up naming them anyway.
So I do not think the use case justifies the mutilation.
It offers nothing that objects didn't already have.
It offers understandable memory layout without VMT.
That could have been solved with a simple "novmt' keyword just like the existing
'packed'. There, I could have saved Embarcadero lots of valuable time with that :-)
Enough bickering; it is useless. We will not agree, no matter how many arguments are presented:
simply because the arguments are of a metaphysical/human/whatever nature, and not technical.
Michael.
_______________________________________________
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
