[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Tim Sweeney on Programming Languages
In article <389B08B6.AF9E760E@tdv.com>, robm@tdv.com wrote:
> How does Sweeney's ideal future language compare to Dylan?
> I'm sure if he saw Dylan the synatx wouldn't be C++-like enough, and the
> langauge he's describing sounds more like NewtonScript in some respects (
> :-) ).
> But still, I'm curious.
Well, not like NewtonScript because he still seems to want
inheritance-based, rather than delegation-based like NewtonScript.
He doesn't really give many details of what he *does* want, other than the
idea of "virtual classes". This basically seems to be a convenience
feature that if you have related classes A, B, and C, you can nest them
inside another construct such that you can derive a set of new classes A',
B' and C' in one step.
Given that there's no point in making a new class unless you're going to
override some virtual functions, and that even today in C++ you don't
actually have t mention the things that you *aren't* changing, I'm not too
sure just what advantage Sweeney thinks you can get from this. I
certainly don't see anything that you couldn't do using Dylan macros.
-- Bruce
Follow-Ups:
References: