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

[REBOL] choice of representation - was paths & lookups & change

From: brett::codeconscious::com at: 24-Oct-2003 17:42

>From Elan: > My preference for this kind of tasks is using objects. Even though it is > a little more verbose, I find it quite intuitive to use the get and set > functions, as in:
Choice of an "information model" and representation is something I've struggled/ruminated over for a while. I guess I am spoilt for choice. For some applications I think a distinction can be made for informational/database representations depending whether they are out-of-process in a serialised form (on disk / on the wire) or in-process in a tree or other structure suitable for fast evaluations. I habitually try to find a single REBOL representation that solves both needs well, but after I while I wonder whether I should really be considering multiple representations of the same information for different needs. My latest feeling (I certainly have no firm conclusions) is that when I need the information stored on disk, a straight loadable block format (complex dialect or simple sequence) is better for saving in a textual form. Where I need a representation to faciliate in-process evaluations or I need to affect the evaluation itself (e.g bind), objects can be a good candidate. Bridging the two, if necessary, a dialect. As I said, no firm conclusions, just more ruminations. I'm interested to know what other people think about their preference of representation (e.g Robert's preference for blocks, Elan's for objects) when you consider the in-process / out-of-process distinction. Or do people feel that the distinction itself is not useful? I'm sort of assuming here that we're discussing a REBOL only storage and processing application. Another interesting line of discussion would be on useful REBOL idioms when programming a REBOL app to talk SQL. Regards, Brett