Re: anyone define port types?

[Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net>]

Panicz Maciej Godek <godek.maciek@gmail.com>:

> 2016-03-30 13:18 GMT+02:00 Jan Nieuwenhuizen <janneke@gnu.org>:
>
>> Panicz Maciej Godek writes:
>>
>> > I also used GOOPS, which I regret to this day, and so the
>> > whole framework needs a serious rewrite
>>
>> What is it that you do not like about GOOPS?
>
> Most specifically, I dislike its middle three letters. The problem
> with OOP is that it requires to know exactly what ones want -- it is
> difficult to change the design of your program after it's been written
> (and it is also difficult to come up with a good design from the
> beginning), and -- since it is based on state mutation - it makes it
> difficult to reason about your program.
>
> On the practical side, it was a bit counterintuitive that <uvec> and
> <vector> were unrelated, and I think that there were some issues with
> <pair> and <list> types.

I like OOP, only I don't like GOOPS. Its classes and generic functions
seem so idiomatically out of place, unschemish, if you will.

This is how OOP ought to be done:

  <URL: https://www.gnu.org/software/guile/manual/html_node/OO-Closure.htm
  l#OO-Closure>

I have created a tiny Guile module ("simpleton") that generalizes the
principle. In particular,

 * You don't need classes for OOP. You only need objects.

 * Do tie methods to objects. Don't pretend methods are external to
   objects.

 * Don't expose the internal state of objects. Only interact with the
   object through methods.


Marko