Hello [EMAIL PROTECTED]!
On 26-Mag-00, you wrote:
c> True, REBOL is not OO, it is OB (object-based). However, I
c> think View proves that the object inheritance provided in
c> REBOL is quite powerful. VID (Visual Interface Dialect) kernel
c> is a good example.
Yes, and I fully agree with you. :-)
c> As you know, I've been into every aspect of OOL since 1980.
c> I've found that most OOLs do NOT make me more productive... in
c> fact, quite often the opposite.
Ideed, I found REBOL much more appealing than all the other (OO)
languages I've used before. OOP leads inevitably to complexity,
and current software is a clear proof of that. REBOL, instead,
leads you to use simpler concepts and simpler designs.
c> WRT hidden vars: REBOL modules will give you two flavors of
c> that.
That's good news. BTW, will the GC bug eventually be fixed? ;-)
c> BTW, I'm curious as to your definition of "real inheritance"?
c> I missed that thread. Shared instance state?
I think one would need a class hierarchy, and surely dynamic
binding (instead of the static binding of REBOL).
Anyway, I prefer choosing non-OO designs for my scripts, so I
don't need "real inheritance". This usually requires more design
effort for me, because my past experience with other languages
(mostly AmigaE and C++) makes me often think the OO way, but
usually I get a much better solution with the REBOL way.
Regards,
Gabriele.
--
Gabriele Santilli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Amigan - REBOL programmer
Amiga Group Italia sez. L'Aquila -- http://www.amyresource.it/AGI/
