Anders Norås wrote: > True indeed. You have to remember that this just a small example in a > series for a talk I'm doing. The talk is entitled "Patters: Evolution" > and is about how design patterns evolve into languages over time, and > how programming languages influence one another.
Ok, but what is the "changing methods at instantiation time" an example of? What design pattern is that? > The Qi4j demo comes towards the end of a section starting with the > axiom that any Turing complete language can be reimplemented with any > other Turing complete language, moving on to writing object oriented > C, then explaining the differences and similarities between OO-based > and prototype based extension using Java script and Ruby. There are > some mixin stuff and C# extension methods as well. This is where we > get to Qi4j which has some similarities to the things shown earlier, > even if its purpose is quite different. When you say "OO-based" I think that should be "class-based". And being class-based is one of the major problems with OOP as it exists today. > The context thing is something I need to look further into, but for > now I'll stick to the code I've got because this is easier to trace > back to the previous demos. ... and you are doing the previous demos because...? Sorry, at this point I don't get at all why you are trying to do what you said. /Rickard _______________________________________________ qi4j-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/qi4j-dev
