[REBOL] Re: Is Rebol OO?
From: AJMartin:orcon at: 24-Jan-2004 11:47
Jason wrote:
> Generally dialects and local uses of parse seem to emerge from some direct
need. Some job grows really repetitious or lengthy. So a dialect can help
simplify the code keep focus to the task at hand.
I agree. I had the need to generate lots of HTML, and I couldn't bear the
thought of writing it by hand, and all the tools still did things in a
brain-dead manner. So I went smarter and created my ML dialect, which I've
described in my earlier post. Then I discovered how to use XML for other
things and extended the use of ML to WML and XML, so allowing me to do more.
Similarly for my C# code. I write several C# classes and noted that for each
class I had to write several support classes! All these classes were
intensely boring to write and it was very easy to make a small mistake or
three and have lots of defects when the programs were compiled. I wrote my
C# classes Rebol dialect to automatically generate these support classes and
even the originating class! So now, I don't get errors when I need to change
a class or it's supporting classes. I just change the dialect code and all
classes are the same in their own way as it were.
> Beyond that is the idea of hidden smarts, where they can embed logic and
contextual behavior hiding the guts from the casual use.
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?LittleLanguage
Quote:
...the realization that it is easier to implement a task-specific language
optimized for that task than it is to implement a general-purpose language
optimized for all possible uses.
--
Andrew J Martin
ICQ: 26227169
http://www.rebol.it/Valley/
http://valley.orcon.net.nz/
http://Valley.150m.com/
