On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 11:23:16PM +0200, Peter Simons wrote:
On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 04:01:37PM +0200, Peter Simons wrote:
If you're representing text, use 'text'. If you're representing a string of bytes, use 'bytestring'. If you want an "array" of values, think c++ and use 'vector'.
the problem is that all those packages implement the exact same data type from scratch, instead of re-using an implementation of a general-purpose array internally. That is hardly desirable, nor is it necessary.
Just to clarify for those on the sidelines, the issue is duplication of implementation details, rather than duplication of functionality?
I am not sure what the terms "duplication of implementation details" and "duplication of functionality" mean in this context. Could you please explain how these two concepts differ in your opinion?
Hi Peter, When I say "duplication of implementation details" I believe I mean something like your implementing "the exact same data type from scratch". By "duplication of functionality", on the other hand, I mean providing two libraries with similar APIs which essentially serve the same purpose. I believe you are suggesting that there is redundancy in the implementation details of these libraries, not in the APIs they expose. Then again, I was just trying to understand the discussion at hand. I don't have an opinion on it. Tom