I was always curious, why did you choose Simula as inspiration for OO design? Many, including Alan Kay himself, are believing this is wrong approach for original object oriented design in languages, which are followed by Java, C# and many more. Why didn't you used Smalltalk or even CLOS as basis for more dynamic and introspective system (Common Lisp compilers are proving CLOS dynamism doesn't have to be barrier for creating fast and optimized code) and do you think Objective C did the right thing?
What I hate about Wayland is trolling community around it, where guys like you have no clue about the subject. First of all, there _are_ things that are preventing wayland to implement remote renderer, which showed failed GSoC project (http://www.jakemp.org/posts/2011/8/14/turns-out-its-not-as-simple-as-i-thought.html).
The second thing is how Wayland protocol _is not tested in real world_ as X, so no one, even developers knows will be more efficient than X protocol. So please, less trolling and more education.
>...if it's more complex for the parser to understand, it's more complex for a human to understand
Really? As example in C++: "vector<vector<int>> x". Easy to understaind, hell to parse. Or in scheme: "((foo (baz)) foo)"; easy to parse, hell to understaind...at least to untrained brain and eyes;)
Slashdot Mirror
I was always curious, why did you choose Simula as inspiration for OO design? Many, including Alan Kay himself, are believing this is wrong approach for original object oriented design in languages, which are followed by Java, C# and many more. Why didn't you used Smalltalk or even CLOS as basis for more dynamic and introspective system (Common Lisp compilers are proving CLOS dynamism doesn't have to be barrier for creating fast and optimized code) and do you think Objective C did the right thing?
What I hate about Wayland is trolling community around it, where guys like you have no clue about the subject. First of all, there _are_ things that are preventing wayland to implement remote renderer, which showed failed GSoC project (http://www.jakemp.org/posts/2011/8/14/turns-out-its-not-as-simple-as-i-thought.html).
The second thing is how Wayland protocol _is not tested in real world_ as X, so no one, even developers knows will be more efficient than X protocol. So please, less trolling and more education.
> ...if it's more complex for the parser to understand, it's more complex for a human to understand
Really? As example in C++: "vector<vector<int>> x". Easy to understaind, hell to parse. Or in scheme: "((foo (baz)) foo)"; easy to parse, hell to understaind ...at least to untrained brain and eyes ;)