Re: SOS: Simple Object System

[Jon Wilson <jsw@wilsonjc.us>]

Hi,
You might be interested to read Jonathan Rees' take on OO.  It certainly 
broadens the mind regarding the various implementations and terminology 
of OO, but is still quite brief.  I certainly don't think the Java/C++ 
model is the last word in OO (but I didn't think that before reeding 
Rees, either)

http://www.paulgraham.com/reesoo.html

Regards,
Jon

Maciek Godek wrote:
> Thanks a lot for your all attention and clues.
> 
> If it comes to GOOPS, I think it would be best to
> specify a well-defined C-level interface (for it would
> go with the spirit of guile). This is the one thing.
> 
> The other is that in GOOPS a method is something
> different than what is commonly known in OOP, because
> a class doesn't know its methods (and furthermore,
> methods can be created at any time of program execution,
> not only during class definition). I'm not saying that
> it's good or bad (but it's quite confusing when a few similar
> but different notions share one name)
> 
> There is also another issue concerning the fact that
> methods are available in global namespace -- the
> performance of the interpreter is always penalized
> by the type lookup (obviously, this doesn't have to
> be the case if the code is compiled)
> 
> But the most important feature of OOP that is missed
> in GOOPS (because of global namespace methods) is the lack
> of the clean separation of interface and implementation
> in the way it's done in java, C# and the like.
> 
> (At least that's what I think)
> 
> Thanks again
> M.
> 
>