Inheritance in Revolution?
Richard Gaskin
ambassador at fourthworld.com
Sat Sep 11 20:00:15 EDT 2004
Dan Shafer wrote:
> At the end of the day, speaking as an old Smalltalker who thinks objects
> rule, I've just had give up on the OO dream when using Rev. As you've
> learned, it's not implemented and although there are some worthy
> work-alikes, they're not really satisfactory to an OO thinker.
>
> There has been a lot of back-channel talk about either creating an OO
> version of Transcript or forking a new IDE/Language combo for OO folks
> but my guess is that's a pretty distant dream at this point.
Yes, if the goal is OOP. But OOP is a means to an end, not an end in
itself.
If the goal is to implement OOP as a merely intellectual exercise, Rev
will be a disappointing experiment.
But if the goal is to get results that benefit development and
maintenance of software systems, there's likely a highly profitable way
to achieve those ends in Rev as it is today.
This is not to suggest that OOP is without value; on the contrary, I've
seen otherwise. But I've also seen the Mac Toolbox and other non-OOP
systems that still get great benefit from well-structured interfaces
that achieve similar results. And with a million fewer JSRs. ;)
The original poster presented a practical problem, and a practical
solution was offered that was simple and incurs only 0.006ms of overhead
on a modest computer (using a frontScript to allow well-factored code
that applies only to specific objects). It's not OOP, but it gets the
job done and lets the developer move on to the next challenge....
--
Richard Gaskin
Fourth World Media Corporation
___________________________________________________________
Ambassador at FourthWorld.com http://www.FourthWorld.com
More information about the use-livecode
mailing list