On 2010-11-25, at 1:21 PM, Maxime Chevalier-Boisvert wrote:
Can't help but find this a bit discouraging. Modules, yes, but it does seem like they do want to inject everything in there (including the kitchen sink), without actually fixing some of the more fundamental language flaws (little things like true/false/null being constant keywords, and undefined being a variable).
Hey, it is still time to let them know what you think!
I mean, I don't even hate the arguments object that much... It would actually work O.K. if the spec didn't have the insane requirement that the parameters must alias with the object fields, and that the object isn't even a real array...
I'll try to relax and remind myself that their spec is due for 2013, which probably means 2014-2015, and that I might be getting pretty close to done with my Ph.D. by then!
I'm not sure it is a good idea to strive for instant irrelevance even though that seems to happen often with PhD's...
You know, Marc, I think your class is giving me more appreciation for Scheme. It feels pretty robust, as a language. Now if someone could just find a way to solve the parenthesis problem ;)
There are two ways to solve that problem...
1) change your views about parens
2) SIX!
% gsi Gambit v4.6.0
\ for (int i=1; i<=6; i++) print("I love ", i, "...\n");
I love 1... I love 2... I love 3... I love 4... I love 5... I love 6...
Marc