From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Jon Wilson Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.user Subject: Re: SOS: Simple Object System Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 18:25:34 -0400 Message-ID: <48DABE5E.8030007@wilsonjc.us> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1222295677 19007 80.91.229.12 (24 Sep 2008 22:34:37 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 22:34:37 +0000 (UTC) To: guile-user@gnu.org Original-X-From: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Sep 25 00:35:33 2008 connect(): Connection refused Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-user@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1KicxH-0005bt-1w for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Thu, 25 Sep 2008 00:35:31 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37350 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KicwE-0004hl-0b for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 18:34:26 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Kicug-0004C0-Oc for guile-user@gnu.org; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 18:32:50 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Kicuf-0004AQ-2K for guile-user@gnu.org; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 18:32:50 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=44884 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Kicue-0004AG-UL for guile-user@gnu.org; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 18:32:48 -0400 Original-Received: from mailgw1.fnal.gov ([131.225.111.11]:63812) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Kicue-0003XS-Ly for guile-user@gnu.org; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 18:32:48 -0400 Original-Received: from mailav2.fnal.gov (mailav2.fnal.gov [131.225.111.20]) by mailgw1.fnal.gov (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.06 (built Mar 28 2005)) with SMTP id <0K7Q008UP0WRVC@mailgw1.fnal.gov> for guile-user@gnu.org; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 17:25:35 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: from mailgw1.fnal.gov ([131.225.111.11]) by mailav2.fnal.gov (SAVSMTP 3.1.7.47) with SMTP id M2008092417253422352 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 17:25:34 -0500 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.mailgw1.fnal.gov by mailgw1.fnal.gov (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.06 (built Mar 28 2005)) id <0K7Q0000106KGM@mailgw1.fnal.gov> (original mail from jsw@wilsonjc.us) for guile-user@gnu.org; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 17:25:35 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: from wilsonjc.us (cpe-75-187-46-126.columbus.res.rr.com [75.187.46.126]) by mailgw1.fnal.gov (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.06 (built Mar 28 2005)) with ESMTPSA id <0K7Q00C8Q0YM0L@mailgw1.fnal.gov> for guile-user@gnu.org; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 17:25:35 -0500 (CDT) In-reply-to: User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (X11/20080724) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: Solaris 9 X-BeenThere: guile-user@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: General Guile related discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.user:6815 Archived-At: 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. > >