[erlang-questions] Erlang 3000?

[Masklinn]

On 18 nov. 08, at 22:57, "Richard O'Keefe" <ok@REDACTED> wrote:

>
> On 18 Nov 2008, at 7:36 pm, Dave Smith wrote:
>> The package hierarchy does not need to be deep.
>
> This is perfectly true.  But if the Java and Haskell experiences
> are anything to go by, it WILL become deep whether it needs to
> or not.

Python also has arbitrarily nested package, but it doesn't seem to  
have that issue maybe due to it's direct physical mapping and  
importing flexibility (especially in top level packages). And although  
it's been slightly revised in 3000 and some people find __init__.py to  
be a kludge I find the system pleasant to work with.

A sane (= not too deeply nested) example set by the standard library  
might also help (the lower nesting of the java stl is already 3 levels  
or so...)