From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Neil Jerram" Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.user Subject: Re: SOS: Simple Object System Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 12:22:59 +0200 Message-ID: <49dd78620809140322o1502473ahc5078b168700bc4a@mail.gmail.com> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1221387896 8828 80.91.229.12 (14 Sep 2008 10:24:56 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 10:24:56 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-user@gnu.org To: "Maciek Godek" Original-X-From: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Sep 14 12:25:52 2008 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 1Keonf-0006Yt-De for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Sun, 14 Sep 2008 12:25:51 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57206 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Keomc-0003Py-7X for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Sun, 14 Sep 2008 06:24:47 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Keol0-0003Cj-Et for guile-user@gnu.org; Sun, 14 Sep 2008 06:23:06 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Keokw-0003Bi-Ex for guile-user@gnu.org; Sun, 14 Sep 2008 06:23:04 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=34283 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Keokv-0003B9-HI for guile-user@gnu.org; Sun, 14 Sep 2008 06:23:02 -0400 Original-Received: from rv-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.198.248]:5328) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Keoku-0007mj-Um for guile-user@gnu.org; Sun, 14 Sep 2008 06:23:01 -0400 Original-Received: by rv-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id k29so1835932rvb.6 for ; Sun, 14 Sep 2008 03:22:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=au43Lebvbjdqkt3ehWM0IjFcVfoYP+rPEmbf2a/BZO4=; b=FJDonp2SmyeABnlfuveb1b8Lkszfv8XRumXoykc2n5O+1nhwGxWW+wa4nZx7amExZJ UFMz/kZfV4mkXxqclqfO2eCf29tvHuKbs1VUYT5/1P4RQUQzQ29OQCiVKk01pVYirXNY tS6RNd94NOmJXCWVer8e3q8cDvXGzQAWyB1HU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=uwF7X5PXxGzgzU4pYZJgjc5yQKgpEWneFGc+NZOvogNXU2wjLKhfYE9A4QSTHOh3jt MROjoh4Q0/VWdwbPMpvCEyGD0AEWYdDdpKU3UfRNcjCM0yOMO6ztKCPqB5XDUz9p/Kkr 5w9IPmroDTixVTEXoDOcObJgJ1EvJjs0QgXng= Original-Received: by 10.141.170.10 with SMTP id x10mr3932857rvo.140.1221387779355; Sun, 14 Sep 2008 03:22:59 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.141.177.4 with HTTP; Sun, 14 Sep 2008 03:22:59 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) 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:6767 Archived-At: Hi Maciek, Thanks for sharing this! 2008/9/14 Maciek Godek : > Hi, > Using some hints you gave me, I've implemented a really tiny > object system -- and I would like to know your opinion ("why > it's still better to use goops" :D) You have already given a good summary of the pros and cons yourself, below. > It has, as I can > tell, a few advantages over goops -- mainly, storing objects > as vectors allows for an efficient and convenient object treating > from C level, so boatmen should be satisfied. > Secondly, people accustomed to the object.method() notation > (like myself) won't feel lost and the global namespace will be > kept clean. > The system certainly isn't as complex as goops and doesn't > handle types (in general) so exquisitely. Also, it's unable to > support multiple inheritance efficiently (single inheritance isn't > supported as well, but this could be done quite easily if needed), > but that's not my point. I think the only big thing you missed was GOOPS's level of customizability, which one you to create virtual slots, automatically define slots for classes of a particular metaclass, and such like. It's good to have another option than GOOPS. I imagine the major reason someone might choose to use SOS instead of GOOPS would be the C-level access. (And I hope we can one day work out something like that for GOOPS!) Regards, Neil