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

[REBOL] Re: Speeding up code

From: joel:neely:fedex at: 21-Feb-2002 9:45

Hi, again, Gabriele, Gabriele Santilli wrote:
> Well, I think users don't expect this behavior because they are > used to the term "object" as used in OOP (and in particular in > class-based OOP). >
I'd say that most people ONLY know the term "object" in terms of the class-based OO model. People (the minority) who know about other options for "objects", such as prototype-based or delegation- based models, won't have the problem you're addressing. There has been significant work in a variety of ways of understanding objects and how to use and implement them. Unfortunately, the (numerical) predominance of c and c++ has led most people to assume that dynamic data structures require pointers and objects require classes.
> Not to go against Joel, ;) but if RT actually named OBJECT! as > CONTEXT! instead this confusion would not exist... >
By "this confusion" I assume you mean the issue of initialization that Sunanda raised. (The "other confusion" I've addressed in a separate post. ;-) It seems to me that RT had two options: 1) Give things completely different names, to avoid leading people to think they understand things and bring in irrelevant baggage. 2) Give things conventional-sounding names, to help people make a connection with what they already know. This choice is not specific to REBOL. I've heard it claimed that the designers of Java deliberately chose to make it resemble c++ rather than Smalltalk was to avoid scaring off people whose understanding of programming was limited to c/c++. That strategy appears to have worked for them! But choosing option #2 implies the need for clear explanations and documentation to help people understand *how* things are similar to, and different from, what they already know. -jn-