[REBOL] Re: REBOL : Pure OOP project ?
From: etienne:alaurent:free at: 8-Apr-2002 3:04
Hi, Christian,
I'm interested with your OO approach. Did you make tests with your lib
(memory allocation and size, performance) ? What kind of method did you
use to code your OO approach ? pre-processor with translation in rebol ?
Christian Morency wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Considering the low number of replies I got from the list regarding this
>thread : Class object inheritance library interest ? and the interest shown
>in the Business object versionning thread. I begin to think that either
>Rebolers are not interested in almost pure OOP with REBOL or that interest
>is only limited to one's personal project...
>
>For the past few months, I've been thinking about several implementation of
>class object inheritance.
>
>I currently have one implementation : a rebol object that implements
>inheritance through a library of func.
>
>I have another implementation in mind : one with the classic
>smalltalk80-like object/behavior/class inheritance where all would be
>implemented in base objects but would be inherited.
>
>But both of the above use current datatypes/functions of Rebol. So it would
>not be pure-like objects.
>
>My latest "favourite" implementation would be to completely embed
>datatypes/functions in objects. ie all object methods would be instances of
>class Methods etc... String class would provide behavior to an embedded
>value of datatype String!. etc... but would require more
>path/getters/setters etc.
>
>I can understand that some people here are not interested in that. They may
>be quite satisfied with the Self-like inheritance model of Rebol ! But I
>would like to have the ability to change the behavior of objects by changing
>their classes, and save memory by implementing a function once instead of
>copying it everywhere. Even have a versionning system.
>
>This all started 4 months ago when I was about to do a project in Rebol. But
>I knew I needed better OO for this project... This project has not started
>yet and I wish it did.
>
>Again, anybody interested ? Cuz otherwise, maybe I'll be doing like everyone
>else and go with what RT decided for me and use the current Object!
>implementation.
>
>Best,
>Chris
>
--
regards.
---
Etienne
