On Jul 2, 8:12 pm, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Any universal protocol will suffer either from complexity or
> narrowness - some suffer from both. If every API has to go through
> this Unity API, then either Unity will be as powerful and complex as C
> with all its libraries, or it'll overly restrict things. That's why
> Unity is really just C.
Well i never said we could not just use c of course. I'm trying to
lubricate the imagination here :).
However you have to convince the application devs of that. Most just
create bindings for a well known language like Python or Ruby and call
it a day. However some idiots go as far as writing their own mini
language (Audacity comes to mind!) and we cannot allow this to
happen!
The same problem exists in GUI's. Why the hell is there so many GUI
libraries? How many different label widgets do we need to re-invent?
It's ludicrous! Okay somebody might argue that we cannot just have one
because it would be too large. WHAT! Again imagination is the missing
link here. There is a simple solution... it's called "from GUI import
subset.x.y.z"!
I mean what is the point of having two languages with the exact same
syntax?
Ruby: print 'blah'
Python: print 'blah'
Ruby: for x in blah: blah_blah_blah
Python: for x in blah: blah_blah_blah
WHAT?
This multiplicity reminds me of a beginning CS student code:
def add(1,2):
return 1+2
def add(3,4):
return 3+4
def ...
Instead of:
def add(x, y);
return x+y
asinine!
Devs preach of code re-use but they propagate multiplicity in their
language design. Sadly we are still in the stone age of programming
and i don't know if i'll live long enough to see a real revolution.
People are waiting in breads lines all day but do not consider why?
(or they are too afraid to ask).
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
