I always wanted to ask if the prototype object model is a good idea or bad idea?
The same question applies to Morphic User Interface Construction Environment - good idea or bad idea? Given neither idea seems to have caught on I’m assuming both are dead ends? Kind regards, Stephen > On 27 Dec 2018, at 18:46, Neil Van Dyke <n...@neilvandyke.org> wrote: > > Matthew Butterick wrote on 12/27/18 12:00 PM: >> According to Brendan Eich, "The good parts of [JavaScript] go back to Scheme >> and Self" [1] combined with "a lot of stupid". [2] > > I appreciate Eich's candor and thoughtfulness there. > > From Self, I think JavaScript initially got the prototype object model, and > possibly whatever slot access/dispatch optimizations Self used. > > Self did some even more novel/noteworthy things, which PL enthusiasts would > want to know about: JIT or runtime incremental optimization, visual/concrete > programming active morphs worlds, and (I include this) the morphs world > object editors. > > Self was very neat and exotic at the time I used it. And the set of > innovations suggests such a pleasing causal chain of necessity being the > mother of invention, that I don't want to know if it's not the truth: morphs > world => loose prototype-delegation concurrent objects => runtime > optimization. > > Regarding Scheme, I suppose Eich might've just used a simple Scheme with a > prototype object model (it's very simple to implement). But Java was already > out there, the original purpose of LS/JS (IIRC) was merely glue to load Java > applets (not full-GUI-application DOM manipulation and logic like today), and > Sun had made Java have a C++/C syntax, because that's the kind of programmer > they thought would be developing in it. I suppose, as soon as I was whipping > up a "Java-ish light scripting language" back then, even if Scheme was my > inspiration, as soon as I was figuring out the different syntax anyway, I > probably would've simplified semantics (e.g., free tail calls and first-class > continuations would seem unnecessary). > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Racket Users" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
