[REBOL] Re: Rebol Framework suggestion
From: chrismorency:videotron:ca at: 10-Sep-2001 20:56
Hi,
> IIRC, Ladislav Mecir created methods.r some time ago? It allowed
> you to have classes, objects, methods, etc. IIRC ... I just wonder,
> if it is still available anywhere? :-)
I would be interested in looking at this.
> On the other hand - I programmed in CA Visual Objects. I read
> many papers on object orientation, and while I am not too good
> programmer, I sometimes don't fully understand all the fuss
> about object orientation and its advantages - hey, the result is
> some executable code, user doesn't care, so the only one
> question is - programmer's efficiency.
Hmm, I won't go into that discussion since I'm neither a big advocate of
either method (OOP or functional/procedural), suffice to say I prefer OOP
for my personal taste, and Rebol offers that so that's a + for me ;-)
> With Rebol, you get nice space navigation, you have very dynamic
> binding on demand. So, if I understand things correctly, you have
> much wider freedom to define things exactly as they fit your
> solution. btw: as of Core 2.5, object creation functionality was
> slightly extended - although I never found practical reason to
> use it :-) http://www.rebol.com/docs/core25.html#section-11
Thanks for the reminder for the link ;-) The way objects are implemented in
Rebol may use a lot of memory AFAIK. Usually in OOP, the Class defines the
methods and properties of an object and the objects will implements their
own properties based on the class... however they will point to the methods
in the class ! Also, a method which is not implemented in a sub-class will
be inherited from the one above, not copied... My main concerns is not only
related to memory issue but to debugging also... I would like to probe an
object and have the possibility to only see what I want, ie the current
properties and maybe the methods that are define at this level... knowing
that the others are inherited.
> Would be nice to have. I just wonder what happened to Carl's
> Rebol/Author ....
Hmm, rings a bell, but that might have been mentioned when I was not active
with Rebol as I am now...
> Yes, style I miss most, is fast, nice tree-view ...
> But reusability as you describe it, has very low in common with object
> orientation itself imo. The topic ran here several times already.
> The Rebol
> script header contains 'needs field, so the idea was that once you do
> %some-script.r, and its header contains Needs:
> [http://rlibrary.com/gfx/effects.r 1.2], it would look for it
> locally, and if
> not available, script would try to download it from the library ...
Well well-defined generic object can be reused, I mean a lot of languages
have libraries which are re-usable ! As for the needs, requires headers, I
find them instructive, but would appreciate if rebol made sure these were
loaded in memory...
> Another usefull thing would be probably to extend help to work
> upon objects - to
> autocollect help info from it's functions, print list of words
> and their values,
> etc.
>
> What would I like to see maybe even more, - more dialects ...
Who doesn't *smile*
best,
Chris
