[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Synergy between Skill-driven design and Dylan?

<p.robisch@bull.de> wrote in message
C12568EF.0051C91B.00@mail.bull.de">news:C12568EF.0051C91B.00@mail.bull.de...
>      "In Dylan, classes do not establish scopes at all. Since methods
>      in Dylan are not attached to the classes they name, they dont
>      have any privileged access to the slots (instance variables)
>      of the class.
>      Instead, modules are used to establish separate namespaces with
>      import/export control. Not only does this eliminate global name
>      collisions (names can be renamed as they are imported), but
>      separate modules can provide separate interfaces to the same
>      variables. This is simpler and more flexible than C++s
>      categorization of access into public, private, and protected
>      buckets."
>      (quote from http://www.dylanworld.com/advocacy/Competitive.html)

  I'm curious about this.  I've looked at Dylan in a cursory fashion on a
couple of occasions, and I don't remember seeing this difference in thinking
when reading/playing with it.  For me it came across as "yet another OO
language", one with some nice features mind you, but it seemed the thought
patterns were largely similar or the same as Obj-C.

  Here you imply that this is not the case and that it is possible/correct
to think using another pattern.  Did I read you correctly?  If so, what is
the difference, and why does it manifest itself in the language?

Maury
Follow-Ups: References: