Arne Babenhauserheide <arne_...@web.de> writes: > Marko Rauhamaa <ma...@pacujo.net> writes: >> I have typed this message in emacs. > > Same for me, but getting people to use Emacs is harder. It might not > *be* that complicated, but it *feels* different. > >> In my opinion one of the worst problems with Scheme is the Schemers: >> Scheme lovers are often far too enthusiastic with defining new, esoteric >> syntax instead of solving practical problems. >> >> Then, there's GOOPS, which in my opinion is simply an unnatural way to >> go about object-oriented programming. It does violence both to ordinary >> OO way of thinking and classic Lisp idioms. > > GOOPS works pretty well for me where I use it (for dispatch by > type). Could you clarify your criticism: Do you think it is bad or is it > just different?
My main beef with GOOPS is that it does not help with narrowing down on a solution but rather with extending the problem space. It is too generic to provide guidance and a cohesive framework: if two different people solve problems using GOOPS, the likelihood that those solutions can be connected in interface or design better than non-GOOPS solutions is slim. -- David Kastrup
