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

[REBOL] Re: REBOL : Pure OOP project ?

From: tim:johnsons-web at: 8-Apr-2002 18:49

* Christian Morency <[chrismorency--videotron--ca]> [020408 15:13]: Hi Christian:
> 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?
> > My experience with Ansi C (large projects) has taught me that you > > can do OOP with > > any language, but it takes some thought and design. My experience > > with C++ (large projects) has taught me that poorly managed or designed > > OOP can be a major headache and cause overly-frequent recompiles. > > In a word, I'd like to keep a thread on OOP going. > > Me too ;) > > > How can I contribute? > > Any ideas on how OOP could work in Rebol is welcomed...
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 2)Some entity approved, monitored and made other decisions as to the makeup of those resources. 3)The makeup of those resources should (I think) be comprised of discrete components with some degree of re-usability. 4)One of my obstacles (regardless of the language involved) is that ==>> greater re-usability = more difficult configuration ==>> lesser re-usability = easier configuration. "miles to do before I sleep" r. frost -tj- -- Tim Johnson <[tim--johnsons-web--com]> http://www.alaska-internet-solutions.com http://www.johnsons-web.com