Stefs roadmap for 3.9, time to get it nailed down
Blake
blake at kingdomrpg.com
Sat Feb 26 10:00:14 UTC 2005
On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 10:01:15 +0100, Cees de Groot <cg at cdegroot.com> wrote:
> It's not an 'if'. It's a fact. I haven't read the original Traits paper
> for years, but I still remember my excitement about refactoring that
> beast. Not only will a huge hierarchy be refactored - you'll end up with
> gobs of reusable code. So, if you want to build a class that has
> 'Set-ness', you can simply grab the corresponding Trait instead of
> having to create a Set ivar and delegate all over the place. Set will be
> reduced of just a sample class that has 'Set-ness'.
I don't know why people aren't more excited about that. It kicks ass. It's
one of those things where you look at it and just immediately say to
yourself, "Yeah. Why didn't we think of this sooner." (Kinda like objects
themselves, though in some ways moreso, since traits are kind of like old
style function libraries. You could almost see Traits as a concept
predating objects, except that objects provide the support structure.)
OK, enough cheerleading, I guess. I just haven't seen anything this
exciting in a while. (Maybe aspects, but while I get why aspects are
exciting, I have yet to really grasp how they work.)
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|