From: transfire@...
Date: 2006-07-13T18:12:21+09:00
Subject: Re: prototype-0.1.0


Jeremy Tregunna wrote:
> On 12-Jul-06, at 10:45 PM, transfire@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >
> > Very nice!
> >
> > The only thing I see, is that your use of the term 'prototype' betrays
> > a Class-based OOP background. Ie. You're usimg "prototype" as one
> > would
> > "class" and "instantiate" them albiet via a deep clone. Using a
> > neutral
> > term like 'object' does away with that.
>
> That is the name of the model. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
> Prototype-based_programming

I'm not sure what your point is. I'm, aware of what it is called. But,
by "model" are you referring to "Prototype" or just the style of
programming? If the former, then here too it brings with it
preconetption of class-based OOP. What I trying to get across is that
there is deeper sense to this then class-oriented programmers generally
grasp. With Prototype-based OOP, you should not start by thinking about
what is Dog. Rather you should just create a dog. Later, if you need a
different dog, you copy your first and change it as needs be. You do
not cookie-stamp a fromal prototype. In a way the term prototype is
unfortuante. Perhaps "Instance-only programming" would convey the idea
better. Of course in practice one often does create Formal entities
nonetheless --as library tools, but even so, the bottom lines is that
there should be no dichotomy between prototype and non-prototype. There
just isn't any such thing in Prototype-OOP.

T.