Corollary: that's a really good point. Yes, library authors should be entitled to put as a bullet point "Library X' is a good citizen of $type_discipline", but that doesn't automatically make Library X' better than the original Library X, which was presumably a good citizen of its own language and type discipline :-)
I agree that it would be possible to automate static->dynamic library conversion, but you're unlikely to end up with a very natural-feeling library like that. I'm thinking about the Ruby DOM libraries there - weren't they later supplanted by more native-feeling interfaces?
I suspect a lot of the answer to your second question is "experience and training", but no doubt a component is "temperament" - and that's the interesting bit.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
I agree that it would be possible to automate static->dynamic library conversion, but you're unlikely to end up with a very natural-feeling library like that. I'm thinking about the Ruby DOM libraries there - weren't they later supplanted by more native-feeling interfaces?
I suspect a lot of the answer to your second question is "experience and training", but no doubt a component is "temperament" - and that's the interesting bit.