Minimalist Classes

[Brendan Eich]

On Nov 1, 2011, at 11:06 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:

> On Nov 1, 2011, at 10:57 AM, Brendan Eich wrote:
> 
>> On Nov 1, 2011, at 10:47 AM, Dmitry Soshnikov wrote:
>> 
>>> The technique I showed of course initially is designed to be used with class-system; though, I think it can be adopted to class-free system as well.
>> 
>> We're not going to delete and restore. That's a non-starter for performance and observable mutation reasons.
> 
> the mutation is so wrong, and not just for performance reasons.

So wrong, don't get me started.

It's important to avoid non-starters that delete, but more than that, we have a pigeon-hole problem. You can't solve it using the heap and nested save-and-restore mutation. That's observable and it doesn't compose.

Back to minimal classes with super factored out nicely as Allen has done. I have a counter-proposal brewing.

/be


> 
> Assume x is global constant reference to an obj and foo is a method of that object that does a super.foo call up through several levels of  "superclass" foo methods.
> 
> In that case the expression "x.foo()" when called  from "somewhere else, such as from a top level expression", is going to do something different then what it does when called (either directly or indirectly) from a super invocation of one of the superclass foo methods.  That can't be reasonable behavior.
> 
> Allen
> 
> 
>