2009/2/10 Kassen
It's hard for me to accept this, since, like you, I find the language lacking. To be precise, the first 5 minutes of Chuck are pure joy, but it becomes an uphill battle from there to do anything of significant complexity. The creators of Chuck want very much to keep it simple. In order to do this, they have to toe a very fine line between functionality and approachability.
I think I'm fairly aware of the sort of thing you are trying and doing and I'm not sure I agree what you are fighting is a actual language issue. IMHO the more relevant question there at this moment is some bad bugs and a lack of documentation. I'm thinking about the type system and casting in particular here.
If he has the same gripes about ChucK stemming from oscillating between Ruby and ChucK all the time, the problem is definitely the language. Whenever I work on Ruby for a while and come back to ChucK, I miss blocks, and being able to reopen classes to define functions, overloading, optional arguments, modules, etc., etc. The ChucK language is incredibly limiting.
I too would like things like functors and i'd like (chuck-) operator overloading but not at the expense of coherence.
Mmm, functors. -- Tom Lieber http://AllTom.com/