[REBOL] Re: REBOL : Pure OOP project ?
From: chrismorency:videotron:ca at: 9-Apr-2002 0:27
Hi,
> > 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
