Thanks for the links.

Container. Component. Context. Graph. I would think a "wonderful language" such as Rust should have no problem with such a basic conceptual setup, but apparently not. I personally am solidly in the adaptive components camp, specially for things like UI.

If you know Rust (I don't), curious if the monadic approach could work, propagating the state as a parameter.

to that point, traits themselves originated first in smalltalk correct??

Not originally, but they were added after Smalltalk-80, one of the links above has the related paper.

They exist now in Squeak and Pharo, both originally based on Xerox's Smalltalk-80 image.

That's quite weird. These traits don't look like rust's traits, which really are a port of typeclasses from Haskell. I think the section about scala illustrates this well because scala's "traits" are an OO construct, but now scala 3 also" has typeclasses. So... Rust still isn't OO.

Ah, trying to go down that route?

ECOOP 2009 proceedings paper from a certain Simon Peyton Jones.

"Classes, Jim, But Not as We Know Them — Type Classes in Haskell: What, Why, and Whither"

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-03013-0_...

Sadly it's paywalled. Care to enlighten me? If inspiration came from smalltalk and not prolog then great, you win.