* Christian Morency <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020408 15:13]:
Hi Christian:
> I gather that your functions must do a lot of code ? OOP/Methods, when
> clearly designed, limits development by favoring reuse. This is one of the
> thing I need for my project.
I kind of agree with Carl's notion that OOP is overrated. Perhaps
the metaphor of "object" needs to change. That might eleviate
preoccupation the metaphor.
From where I sit, 'scheme is sort of a new metaphor, isn't it?
> > My experience with Ansi C (large projects) has taught me that you
> > can do OOP with
> > any language, but it takes some thought and design. My experience
> > with C++ (large projects) has taught me that poorly managed or designed
> > OOP can be a major headache and cause overly-frequent recompiles.
> > In a word, I'd like to keep a thread on OOP going.
>
> Me too ;)
>
> > How can I contribute?
>
> Any ideas on how OOP could work in Rebol is welcomed...
Given tha above thoughts on the "metaphor" here's another
thought or two:
1)Rebol lacks a cohesive set of resources such as is offered
by Python or Perl libraries
2)Some entity approved, monitored and made other decisions
as to the makeup of those resources.
3)The makeup of those resources should (I think) be comprised
of discrete components with some degree of re-usability.
4)One of my obstacles (regardless of the language involved)
is that
==>> greater re-usability = more difficult configuration
==>> lesser re-usability = easier configuration.
"miles to do before I sleep" r. frost
-tj-
--
Tim Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://www.alaska-internet-solutions.com
http://www.johnsons-web.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list, please send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" in the
subject, without the quotes.
