On 25/01/2008, Jason Johnson <jason.johnson.081 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 25, 2008 1:08 AM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua at gmail.com> 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
readability.

-- 
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.