[REBOL] rebol weak points (i think) Re:(4)
From: youpi:technologies:wanadoo at: 11-Sep-2000 11:26
Hello,
Thanks for this discussion. I am interested by that since I had already
posted a general question about OOP in Rebol.
I have used a language which is Toolkbok who was created by Paul Allen and
was the first Visual Language on Windows even before Visual Basic (Bill
Gates even said to Paul Allen "Your product is marvellous. I'm going to copy
it!"). Toolbook has very advanced OOP concepts and at the same time much
simpler and more elegant than other languages. But the only thing that was
really awful was that he coped with object directly without dynamic linking
to some sort of prototype or class or whatever you want to call the
ancestor. For building complex program with such a model is very easy but to
maintain and reuse components in multiple projects all alive is very
difficult without creating our own framework of MFC like in Visual C.
I have exactly the same problem in Visual Basic which only knows Interfaces
but completly ignore inheritance which is implemented in Visual C. So if you
want to make some sort of industrial softwares (automate part of software
conception) with the classic document-view architecture in VB and Rational
Rose you will have tremendous difficulties.
So I think I will encounter exactly the same problem in Rebol although I
could make an architecture of messages sending that would implement some
sort of inheritance as I did in VB. But as for now I didn't see enough
advanced documentation in Rebol to be able to do it. The documentation is
very well done but lack some advanced explanation about conception. So I
look at some examples in rebol.org but still didn't see any example of
architecture framework.
