Re: How to make GNU Guile more successful

[Arne Babenhauserheide <arne_bab@web.de>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1562 bytes --]


David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:

> Arne Babenhauserheide <arne_bab@web.de> writes:
>
>> Marko Rauhamaa <marko@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.

That’s a good point.

A framework which provides that guidance could be built on top of GOOPS,
though. Or would that carry around too much burden from the generic
approach it’s based on?

Best wishes,
Arne
-- 
Unpolitisch sein
heißt politisch sein
ohne es zu merken

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 800 bytes --]