[REBOL] Re: objects without overhead
From: petr:krenzelok:trz:cz at: 23-Oct-2000 7:02
Ole Friis wrote:
> - Why was REBOL designed this way (as I don't see any benefits of doing it
> that way, as I don't see memory overhead as a benefit)
>
> - _Does_ the REBOL interpreter actually use "copy-on-write", or should we
> get
> used to writing object-oriented REBOL programs in obscure ways to avoid
> memory and speed penalties (the latter because the values in the prototype
> object has to be copied somehow, and this takes time)?
>
> The above two questions are intentionally written in a provocative way to,
> well, provoke REBOL Tech. to answer them :-)
>
... to add to the provocation ;-)))
- RT never answers such questions .... the just will tell you it's this way or
that way, but will not discuss why it's like it is ... :-)
- REBOL reference aproach is great, but should be noted in each doc on the first
lines in bold with several !!!! I remember the struggle with simple recursion
function, as well as shared sub-objects. Just try to have several progress bars
and change 'bar subobject of one of them - it will be reflected thru all of them
- unpleasant, unwanted behavior. So in the end you end up copying it yourself,
and ppl coming to your script wonder why you do things this way, and next time
another way.
btw: what about dialect for context creation? obj: make/spec some-obj []
[subobjects copy-on-write funcs share level 1 copy rest] blabla :-)
However, on the other hand - Carl's the designer and let's accept the policy he
surely knows why it's the way it is ... What's more - I hope adding module
support to /Core will make context issues much more clear, we just need to wait
for the addition.
Cheers,
-pekr-
