Musings about modularity and programming in the large

Igor Stasenko siguctua at
Fri Jan 25 08:01:39 UTC 2008

On 25/01/2008, Jason Johnson <jason.johnson.081 at> wrote:
> On Jan 25, 2008 1:08 AM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua at> wrote:
> >
> > I heard about this a while ago. IIRC perl having per-object behavior
> > customization.
> > But this can be easily made , when object model is prototype based
> > (perl/javascript).
> Perl has the almost exactly the same OO system Lua has, i.e. nearly
> nothing.  In both cases, OO systems are added as libraries (you're
> probably thinking of one called Moose).  But perl's "object model" is
> not prototype based, just some of the modules on CPAN duck tape such a
> model on.
> The prototype method of OO is interesting.  It's a shame the best
> incarnation of it, Self, seems to be defunct at the moment.  I hope it
> comes back some day.
Ok, but the question, what gives per-object on-the-fly behavior
customization comparing to strict class model still is unanswered.
I agree, its more flexible than classes, but i don't see real use
cases, where such feature, when introduced, gives more flexibility in
project development.

As analogue, in ST, when i want some code to behave differently,
depending on situation, i always can use blocks , to represent my
custom code.
But i don't see, how extending/replacing behavior without using
classes (on per-object basis) can be really better than subclassing
from dev's point of view and from POV of project integrity and it's

Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list