[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
