Hello,
Please accept my apologizes if the following remarks/questions sound stupid
or silly to you, but I can't resist ask/remark in order to gain a better
understanding of what you meant when writing the following :
2009/2/5 mikel <mev...@mac.com>
> On Feb 1, 7:22 pm, David Nolen <dnolen.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > (time (dotimes [x 1000000]
> > (make-instance rect :height 100 :width 150)))
> >
> > > ~280ms
> >
> > (defstruct rect-struct :tag :position :width :height)
> > (time (dotimes [x 1000000]
> > (struct-map rect-struct :tag ::rect :position [50 50] :width 100 :height
> > 190)))
> >
> > > ~800ms
> >
> > Also, it is now available under an MIT license, feel free to fork, send
> > patches at will etc.
>
>
> I'm still quite interested in this project, and I'm tempted to try
> rewriting a subsystem in my own main project with it, but in the
> course of developing some behavior that I needed, I went off in a
> slightly different quasi-object-like direction. If I were going to add
> something to Spinoza, it would be eql specializers.
>
> I'm not going to add anything to Spinoza, though, at least not right
> now; instead, I'm going to keep working on my own model/protocol/thing
> subsystem. Similar to Spinoza, it uses maps to represent objects;
> objects are called 'things'. A thing has a 'model' and a 'protocol'.
> The model determines what fields the thing has, and whether there are
> any type restrictions on the values; the protocol determines what
> operations (that is, what multifunctions) work on the thing.
Doesn't that sound like multifunctions whose dispatching is tied to the
type ('model') of a 'thing' ?
And if this is correct, in what does it differ from the concept of interface
in Java ?
I don't argue that this model is better than what you're doing with
> Spinoza, but for years (see
> http://www.mactech.com/articles/frameworks/8_2/Protocol_Evins.html
> from 1994) I've wanted an object model that explicitly separates
> structure from protocol, and since I partially built one in order to
> satisfy a need I had in a larger project, I think I'll push ahead with
> it a bit to see whether it's worthwhile.
Once again, does'nt this correspond to the introduction of the interface
concept in java ?
Or, asked differently, compared to what you're thinking about, what does the
java 'interface' concept lack ?
> If I were going to add one thing to my own model/protocol/thing
> subsystem--or add one thing to Clojure to support it--it would be
> predicate dispatch. Who knows? Maybe I will, if I decide that I want
> it badly enough.
>
>
>
> >
>
--
Cordialement,
Laurent PETIT
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
