
Namespaces are obsolete - niyazpk
http://weblogs.asp.net/bleroy/archive/2012/09/03/namespaces-are-obsolete.aspx
======
kstenerud
"programmers like neat little boxes, and especially boxes within boxes within
boxes. For some reason. Regular human beings on the other hand, tend to think
linearly, which is why the Windows explorer for example has tried in a few
different ways to flatten the file system hierarchy for the user."

Regular people think in terme of boxes-inside-boxes as well. They'll know, for
example, that the dog food is kept in a sealed plastic container in the bottom
drawer of the leftmost cupboard in the kitchen. That's a four level hierarchy,
just for the dog food. Same goes for books, clothes, the vacuum cleaner, the
band-aids - hell, pretty much everything.

Hierarchies are how we keep information sets small and manageable. Removing
that does not simplify things; it's more like just lumping everything you own
into a big pile on the floor and searching through hundreds of items every
time you need something.

------
mindstab
I'm a little confused. A purely OO programmer mostly in .Net land sees one
cute JS trick example and declares Namespaces obsolete? I'm not sure which
side of this is more funny/confusing: that there are plenty of other languages
doing this already or that there are others just not using namespaces
already/forever. Or that even ones that don't exactly use them still sometimes
replicate some of their features just with long naming conventions...

It seems a very personal epiphany, not really news worthy tho. It's kind of
like an Onion title "Area man discovers X" where X is common facet of
knowledge to the rest.

~~~
B-Con
> A purely OO programmer mostly in .Net land sees one cute JS trick example
> and declares Namespaces obsolete?

Yep.

The majority of "X is obsolete" or "Y is the way of the future" blog posts are
like this. HN loves to be bleeding edge, so anything saying "out with the old"
gets submitted here.

