De: Dan Ingalls DanI@wdi.disney.com.
My experience is that it's about equally difficult to get the benefits of
classes
using prototypes as to get the benefits of prototypes with classes. I'm
interested
in this topic because I think one can pretty much have the best of both
worlds.
With the computer algebra kit, I felt that in some cases, the prototype based approach was "right" since you could take a polynomial in some representation, and then make a "similar" polynomial, but in a sligthly different representation, so in that case, a "clone" message was appropriate.
But in other cases, I'd just want to create a Term instance as a group of coefficient, symbol and exponent, and in that case, I just want to use a factory message for a factory (class) like Term. If there weren't a Term class, I'd have to add it anyhow.
I detect a bit of an attitude behind your question (since I'm sure you
knew
the answer) and it makes me curious about what your motivation is.
It's very complicated ...
Steve Dekorte is (or perhaps, was, I don't know) an Objective-C supporter. See homepage :
http://www.slip.net/~dekorte/Objective-C/.
So if you look for motivation, look in the area of Objective-C.
I think Squeak is setting a standard for other languages ..., certainly for systems like Objective-C (derived in some sense from ST).
If Squeak would move over to prototypes, then this is a strong argument for other languages to "follow".
Or as a minimum, it would be a reason to call class-based systems like O-C "out-dated" because they would still be class-based, while Squeak and "modern" systems would all be prototype based.
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org