Two important issues...
danielv at netvision.net.il
Sat Feb 15 13:25:48 UTC 2003
"Swan, Dean" <Dean_Swan at Mitel.COM> wrote:
> Just to voice my opinion, I agree with Daniel on this. I feel like I want somebody to convince me that Traits is something I need.
This doesn't sound like what I intended (though the first order
semantics aren't very different ;-).
> I don't really understand Traits too well at this point, but I agree with Daniel that it seems to be of greater value for refactoring existing code than it is for writing new code. How is this different from AspectS and Perspectives, or mix-ins for that matter? My cursory (and perhaps incorrect) understanding leads me to believe that Traits is just another "flavor" of the same kind of thing.
I think you really should read at least one of the papers, if you care
about the topic. Nathanael and the guys produced a model that I think
does a really wonderful job of being SIMPLE, and with scalable
complexity. As opposed to the other solutions I know of. Which is still
quite a distance from being something that's ready for inclusion in 3.5,
as Nathanael agreed.
> To me, Traits is a much more experimental technology than Anthony's VI4 work (full closures, context stack unwinding, etc.), so I'm a bit wary.
Yes, that's concensus.
More information about the Squeak-dev