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

[REBOL] Re: objects without overhead

From: g:santilli:tiscalinet:it at: 24-Oct-2000 13:28

Ole Friis wrote:
> So that's what the REBOL semantics apparently define. However, if the > _implementation_ of REBOL is clever, those two functions will refer to the > same function until you start modifying one of them. Then REBOL will split > them into two, and modify one of them.
It can't work this way, because the function code NEEDS to be copied and modified each time a new object is created; this is because you need to bind it to the new object, and keep the old one bound to the old.
> - 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)
See above.
> - _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)?
You can simply use delegation. Or you can throw OOP away, and use a simpler approach. :-) HTH, Gabriele. -- Gabriele Santilli <[giesse--writeme--com]> - Amigan - REBOL programmer Amiga Group Italia sez. L'Aquila --