Re: Frobs and other useless junk

• Date: Mon, 5 Aug 1996 16:14:51 PDT
• From:
  Andrew Bakun <abakun@scinc.com>
• Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

>My example works now, definitely with no server mods.  That was the whole
>point.  Frobs seem to gain on server overhead -- but using basic data
>types is a bigger gain still!  So why bother with frobs at all (since you
>can't alter their behavior or subclass them or do anything objects ought
>to be able to do or have done to them)??

Well, frobs are useful for other things besides just putting basic types on
the left side of the colon.  The thing is, you can wrap all the basic types
in a frob and you get the same effect as if you could "call" verbs on the
basic types, and not having to wrap them is just a shortcut.  Of course, I
doubt people would use them for much else initially, and that is the down side.

You can subclass true frobs, by subclassing the object that handles them,
and then you create frobs by creating instances of the subclass (where
instances are either lightweight objects or true objects).  It is the whole
idea of refering to calling methods on the basic types that isn't really a
frob to begin with.  Two different, but slightly related, mostly by syntax,
ideas.

Andy.

• Prev: Re: Frobs and other useless junk
• Next: Re: Frobs and other useless junk
• Index: MOO-cows
• Thread: MOO-cows