Sarcasm never really works on mailing lists :) Doru
> On Jun 28, 2016, at 6:02 PM, Eliot Miranda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Jun 28, 2016, at 8:17 AM, Denis Kudriashov <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Following this "bad idea" we should agree that smalltalk metaclass system is >> horrible and class should be just a language artifact >> > Are you being serious or sarcastic? > >> 28 июня 2016 г. 11:45 пользователь "Jan Vrany" <[email protected]> >> написал: >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Nicolas Passerini <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Denis Kudriashov <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> 2016-06-27 13:28 GMT+02:00 Nicolas Passerini <[email protected]>: >>> That is not quite true, annotations are (kind of) objects but you can not >>> put behavior in them, just define attributes and optionally default values >>> for those attributes. >>> >>> Ah, you are right. I remember many restrictions was applied to them which >>> always forced me to hate Java :) >>> >>> Yep. >> >> Well, there's a reason why they're restricted. Note, that the restriction is >> on language level, not at runtime level. A annotation class >> with arbitrary code would pass JVM verification (or at least I can't see a >> rule that would reject such a class). >> >> When I implemented annotation support I was initially thinking the same - >> let's create an instance of CoolAnnotationClass when the code is accepted >> and then one can add arbitrary code to his CoolAnnotationClass. I quickly >> realized this is a (very) bad idea. Or, to be precise, it is a bad idea >> given the >> environment. So I'd be very careful.. >> >> Jan >> >> P.S.: As for "which always forced me to hate Java": I found myself a very >> enlightening to think carefully about why somebody else >> do things differently before I start to hate her/him. Besides, there's whole >> lot of things that Java guys got right... >> >> -- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com "When people care, great things can happen."
