Why we should remove {} from Squeak

danielv at netvision.net.il danielv at netvision.net.il
Mon Oct 1 23:11:28 UTC 2001


ducasse stephane <ducasse at iam.unibe.ch> wrote:
> 
> > I expect things in Squeak to dynamicly calculated, unless explicitly
> > cached or immutable.
> It's fun and make me thinking. I was coming up this afternoon with the idea
> that with simplicity a la scheme in mind = purity, writing
> 
> Character with: 'a' is not equal to $a
> because the first one is always created
> the same goes for #() and Array new
> but for #{} and Array new we have the same creation attitude.
Exactly !
 
> but with your point of view =
> a good caching we could get rid of #() ;) this would be fun.
Which is more alien to Smalltalk and more surprising (an object that's
implicitly shared with all subclass instances?! - not a shared variable,
an implicitly shared *object*! that can be modified!) than {}, and
semantically weaker.

See my proposal in another message on this thread - we should lose the
idea of "compile time created" objects, and use tools to make caching
easier.

Andreas' localization tool sounds like we already have a specialized
tools for editing a specific kind of media object inline, that could be
a beginning.

Daniel




More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list