I'm not sure I agree with this generalization. Having more first-class constructs means that—unless they're truly orthogonal—language designers and users both have to deal with the interactions between them. Implementing new constructs by composing existing ones is far superior. https://twitter.com/jdegoes/status/1091678739589545985 …
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @jdegoes @propensive
My approach is to replace them all with modules. I think the remaining issue is purely syntactical: How to decide whether "module foo" in the first line is a "module declaration" or a module with no contents? Multiple options, including making the line mandatory, or adding {}.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I'm not convinced that the openness of packages is as useful in Scala as in Java, except for separate compilation. Everything else we do that requires packages to be open could be done other ways. Then we could lose packages, and package objects wouldn't need to exist either
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Anyway, that's entirely speculative. I don't think they're going anywhere!
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.