And the more modular the image will get the more will get closer to namespaces anyway. So frankly all I have to do is wait and if I can of course contribute ;)��
You can call it Bootstrap or the Pink Elephant for all I care, in the end for me its about having multi layer system. That's all I care.��
But you wont get an argument from me the more about the fact that the more we wait the harder will get but again, I am not a Bootstrap contributor so I have no right to complain. I really admire those people :D����
Modularisation for personal project is super easy to do,if you do it from the start that is,�� its the existing code that is a pain in the hat to modularise when until fairly recently even colors were hard coded into the IDE.��
2017-10-13 5:55 GMT-03:00 Norbert Hartl <norbert@hartl.name>:
>
>> Am 13.10.2017 um 10:24 schrieb stephan <stephan@stack.nl>:
>>
>> On 13-10-17 09:55, Thierry Goubier wrote:
>>> Because namespaces, by essence, come with serious issues. I won't take
>>> someone seriously on namespaces until he can cite those faithfully.
>>
>> Let's start with the misconception that namespaces are about modularisation
>>
> +1
+1 to this as well.
Having modularization is like having security, very hard to add them
later if you didn't include it in the original design.
I'm using VisualWorks these days, and I find its namespaces something
more of a hassle than a real use.
If we could name Classes with a dot, that could solve most of what
namespaces are used for in practice: avoiding name colissions.
That's why most of the popular frameworks have prefixes like Zn, WA,
RB, and so on and so forth. But now I'm used to prefixes, I don't need
them. :)
Modularity is a different beast, if you look at how some modules work
in JS, like AMD, you see that in practice they avoid collisions by
importin what they need from a module, and assign it to a "namespace"
(it is not, but works as such), so they get modules first, and
namespacing later.
Regards,
Esteban.