Quali usi ha "diventare:" di Smalltalk?

12

Il messaggio become: in Smalltalk fa cambiare un oggetto in un altro, influenzando tutti i riferimenti ad esso.

Quali usi ha questa caratteristica linguistica? Si abitua al codice reale? È solo una curiosità? È considerata una buona / cattiva pratica usarlo?

    
posta dpk 27.07.2015 - 03:52
fonte

2 risposte

11

Gilad Bracha parla di become: con una certa lunghezza:

One of Smalltalk’s most unique and powerful features is also one of the least known outside the Smalltalk community. It’s a little method called become: .

What become: does is swap the identities of its receiver and its argument. That is, after

a become: b

all references to the object denoted by a before the call point refer to the object that was denoted by b, and vice versa.

Take a minute to internalize this; you might misunderstand it as something trivial. This is not about swapping two variables - it is literally about one object becoming another. I am not aware of any other language that has this feature. It is a feature of enormous power - and danger.

Consider the task of extending your language to support persistent objects. Say you want to load an object from disk, but don’t want to load all the objects it refers to transitively (otherwise, it’s just plain object deserialization). So you load the object itself, but instead of loading its direct references, you replace them with husk objects.

The husks stand in for the real data on secondary storage. That data is loaded lazily. When you actually need to invoke a method on a husk, its doesNotUnderstand: method loads the corresponding data object from disk (but again, not transitively).

Then, it does a become:, replacing all references to the husk with references to the newly loaded object, and retries the call.

Some persistence engines have done this sort of thing for decades - but they usually relied on low level access to the representation. Become: lets you do this at the source code level.

Now go do this in Java. Or even in another dynamic language. You will recognize that you can do a general form of futures this way, and hence laziness. All without privileged access to the workings of the implementation. It’s also useful for schema evolution - when you add an instance variable to a class, for example. You can “reshape” all the instances as needed.

Of course, you shouldn’t use become: casually. It comes at a cost, which may be prohibitive in many implementations. In early Smalltalks, become: was cheap, because all objects were referenced indirectly by means of an object table. In the absence of an object table, become: traverses the heap in a manner similar to a garbage collector. The more memory you have, the more expensive become: becomes.

Having an object table takes up storage and slows down access; but it does buy you a great deal of flexibility. Hardware support could ease the performance penalty. The advantage is that many hard problems become quite tractable if you are willing to pay the cost of indirection via an object table up front. Remember: every problem in computer science can be solved with extra levels of indirection. Alex Warth has some very interesting work that fits in this category, for example.

Become: has several variations - one way become: changes the identity of an object A to that of another object B, so that references to A now point at B; references to B remain unchanged. It is often useful to do become: in bulk - transmuting the identities of all objects in an array (either unidirectionally or bidirectionally). A group become: which does it magic atomically is great for implementing reflective updates to a system, for example. You can change a whole set of classes and their instances in one go.

You can even conceive of type safe become: . Two way become: is only type safe if the type of A is identical to that of B, but one way become: only requires that the new object be a subtype of the old one.

It may be time to reconsider whether having an object table is actually a good thing.

In effetti ciò che ottieni è una forma di caricamento pigro attraverso ciò che equivale a metaprogrammazione. Come sottolinea Bracha, questo può essere molto utile ma è anche pericoloso poiché può comportare un grave impatto sulle prestazioni.

    
risposta data 27.07.2015 - 05:57
fonte
1

Non è usato molto. Nell'immagine di Pharo 5 che ho aperto, ci sono 9 mittenti di #become :, 7 dei quali sono in test di unità. Viene utilizzato nel compilatore nella generazione del codice e nella libreria Serializzazione del carburante per sostituire i proxy con il loro contenuto.

    
risposta data 06.10.2015 - 09:49
fonte

Leggi altre domande sui tag