Poll: Packages use
Fri Mar 11 22:32:28 CET 2005
Vlad Dumitrescu wrote:
>* How many people use packages in their
> * How many people plan to start using packages in 6
> months to one year from
Not me. My experience from other languages makes me reject
the feature a priori. The whole concept of packages is
conceptually flawed, IMO.
1) In order to avoid potential name clashes, which are in
fact very rare, they pollute the code all the time. Far from
encouraging longer, meaningful names, you still get short,
cryptic names, but at the end of a long string of package
names which usually have nothing to do with the design.
2) They just reduce the probability of a name clash, but
these are still possible. So we still need a mecanism to
3) Module names and distribution of functions among modules
need to evolve over time, as the design evolves, so we need
refactoring tools to easily rename modules throughout the code.
4) package implementations tend (as in Java and Erlang) to
tie the code down to the file structure, whereas I am
interested in going in the opposite direction (no files).
What I want, and hope to provide some day is:
1) refactoring tools to facilitate renaming my own modules
2) an Eiffel-like facility to use, within my own code, third
party modules /under a different name/, to resolve clashes
when they actually occur.
And yes, I am aware that in Erlang modules can be called
using names that are computed at runtime, but that doesn't
seem too huge an obstacle.
More information about the erlang-questions