Mailing List Archive: 49091 messages
  • Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search

[REBOL] Re: REBOL : Pure OOP project ?

From: chrismorency:videotron:ca at: 9-Apr-2002 0:27

> > I gather that your functions must do a lot of code ? OOP/Methods, when > > clearly designed, limits development by favoring reuse. This is > one of the > > thing I need for my project. > > I kind of agree with Carl's notion that OOP is overrated. Perhaps > the metaphor of "object" needs to change. That might eleviate > preoccupation the metaphor. > From where I sit, 'scheme is sort of a new metaphor, isn't it?
Maybe OOP has been overrated, but I prefer to believe that it's "proper" use has been under-exploited. Since the 60's, we've been challenged by the folder metaphor, the desktop metaphor, the object metaphor, the "window" metaphor and now we get to dialect metaphor with Rebol. What if the metaphor should be organic ? One thing I think is that OOP is NOT Java and not C++, even with all the hype around them. Maybe the Self-like of Rebol's object inheritance is the way to go... but I don't like the idea of having 20 copies of the same method in 20 instances !
> Given tha above thoughts on the "metaphor" here's another > thought or two: > 1)Rebol lacks a cohesive set of resources such as is offered > by Python or Perl libraries
I have several times mentionned that Rebol developers should build libraries and share them. This was the goal. If we are not to write in OOP, at least write simple genereic libraries !
> 2)Some entity approved, monitored and made other decisions > as to the makeup of those resources.
You are suggesting we should have some sort of developer board, maybe independant from RT ? To that I agree. Furthermore, functions in those libraries should provide simple implementation with proper documentation. I prefer to see the following print-string: func [aString] [print aString] than ps: func [s] [print s] --->>> I think we actually see too much of these in current Rebol scripts.
> 3)The makeup of those resources should (I think) be comprised > of discrete components with some degree of re-usability.
Some, I would say major degree of re-usability... I can't believe that everyone's currently fighting with VID in their own personal corner and not sharing content. We need to have better vid libraries !!!
> 4)One of my obstacles (regardless of the language involved) > is that > ==>> greater re-usability = more difficult configuration > ==>> lesser re-usability = easier configuration.
I don't think configuration is that difficult. The most difficult is deciding what is going where... and what is the simplest and most understandable implementation. If Rebol is to succeed in appearing to everybody (from a children to a grandmother), is with simplicity ! Some of the current implementation of Rebol is not really "simple" to the common man. We need to address this in some sort of collective work ! RT gave us tool, but they never said we can't change or build on them ! Best, Chris