[Newbies] Method category tags

Michael van der Gulik mikevdg at gmail.com
Mon Feb 25 20:53:11 UTC 2008

On 2/26/08, cdrick <cdrick65 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi
> In a recent post, Matthew Fulmer explained how categories work... and
> I don't really see why they exist this way... Can someone explain me
> (historical reason, etc...)?

The only reason I could think of would be for speed. In the olden days,
Smalltalk systems ran very slow, so code was often written in an inelegant
but fast manner to get good performance.

I don't believe that the categories have been refactored much since they
were originally designed back in the 80s.

Otherwise - yea, they're yuck. They would be difficult to refactor it in the
squeak.org image because a lot of projects (namely, various browsers and
tools) depend on their implementation.

Matthew also said we could adopt Namespace/Category like Gulik's work on
> namespaces, as Namespaces are much like reified Categories.

My namespaces implementation replaces class categories, but doesn't (yet) do
anything with method categories. I might leave method categories as they are
for the meanwhile; it would be a low-priority refactoring to change them.

I'm never going to advocate integrating my Namespaces implementation into
the squeak.org image. It would be a bad idea -- squeak.org needs to remain
compatible with the large base of code out there,
and my Namespaces solution breaks backwards compatibility. Instead,
I'm making a fork of Squeak called SecureSqueak which will use
Namespaces extensively.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/beginners/attachments/20080226/32cad948/attachment.htm

More information about the Beginners mailing list