[Gambas-user] Suggestions 4 new keywords

[Fabián Flores Vadell]

2010/9/16 Doriano Blengino <doriano.blengino at ...1909...>:
> Ok, I will argue about it. From what I understand, the paradigm you
> describe looks similar to pascal (and C++): an interface section
> declares all the public symbols, which will be detailed (implemented)
> later. So every method declaration must be written twice, in interface
> and in implementation. And this alone is a lot of typing. When the
> number of lines between interface and implementation grows to several
> screens, you start to navigate up and down in the source. A good
> editor/IDE can help, but the problem remains: why we have to write the
> same things twice? Perhaps because a compiler born in the '70 could not
> read the same source twice, especially if that source was punched on
> cards... it is no surprise that a pascal compiler, on modern computers,
> is so fast: the program is written in a way totally good for the compiler!
>
> So, I prefer the gambas way - you write things once, exactly where you
> want, and the compiler does the rest.

Ok. Now I can understand you.

You mistakenly thought than I meant that "INTERFACE" and
"IMPLEMENTATION" keywords should work as they do in Pascal. But I'm
don't saying that. Nothing about that there's in the example I wrote.

There's no need to double typing.

> You say that your proposal is only an <<alternative>>. Ok. Even an
> alternative, an option, must respond to good criteria. I am not saying
> that your proposal is wrong - simply I think that probably it is not
> what a gambas user expects. To let you know, I am probably the most
> critic user of gambas - I am not afraid to point out its weaknesses. But
> this time, I think that gambas is right.

You are doing a wrong reasoning.

Whatever that user expects is cover by the current syntax. Any new
thing (about syntax), will be unexpected to users and possibly will be
very different from BASIC.

Many examples about that there's in Gambas. Think about a little and
you will find many cases.

>> A very important advantage, was not emphasized enough: keywords closer
>> to OOP help very much to teaching an OOP language, because them are
>> closely related to the OOP concepts.
>>
> Uhm... I don't understand why interface and implementation should be
> related in any way to OOP. Don't forget that the gambas way of having
> form=class=module/unit/library/whatever=file is a gambas specific
> simplification. More mature languages can declare more than one class in
> a file, or use more files to declare a single class. Interface and
> implementation existed before OOP was invented, and OOP can live without
> them; these two keywords are simply a way to group declarations - be
> them OOP declarations or not.

I never said that INTERFACE and IMPLEMENTATION concepts are exclusive
from OOP. But in OOP these concepts are a fundamental consequence of
encapsulation.

> I want to say just another thing. It seems that you are proposing
> changes to gambas without having tried it enough.

You are saying this without arguments.

> beings. After some time, and two or three non-trivial applications
> written in gambas, you will change your mind - you will begin to
> appreciate it more than now. If not, you will then, and only then,
> entitled to criticize. I am not saying that gambas is perfect: I feel
> that you and me share many thoughts about programming, but I repeat:
> give gambas some time.

I am not criticizing Gambas. I am proposing an alternative syntax and
seems that you can't understand that someone want to do that.

-- 
Fabián Flores Vadell
www.speedbooksargentina.blogspot.com