From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Christopher Allan Webber Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.user Subject: Re: How to make GNU Guile more successful Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 11:03:59 -0600 Message-ID: <87inob4c8w.fsf@dustycloud.org> References: <87lgtajpkc.fsf@web.de> <878tp967p4.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> <87shnhabln.fsf@web.de> <87r33162wa.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1487178708 1033 195.159.176.226 (15 Feb 2017 17:11:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 17:11:48 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: mu4e 0.9.18; emacs 25.1.1 Cc: guile-user@gnu.org To: David Kastrup Original-X-From: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Feb 15 18:11:43 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-user@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ce37D-0007x5-4j for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 18:11:39 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:42033 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ce37I-0004xS-Qk for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 12:11:44 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47290) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ce2zu-0007H7-Vn for guile-user@gnu.org; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 12:04:07 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ce2zu-0004LP-1p for guile-user@gnu.org; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 12:04:06 -0500 Original-Received: from dustycloud.org ([50.116.34.160]:36706) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ce2zp-0004JS-Q0; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 12:04:01 -0500 Original-Received: from oolong (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dustycloud.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B70952665F; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 12:03:59 -0500 (EST) In-reply-to: <87r33162wa.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 50.116.34.160 X-BeenThere: guile-user@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: General Guile related discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "guile-user" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.user:13231 Archived-At: David Kastrup writes: > Arne Babenhauserheide writes: > >> Marko Rauhamaa 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. Generic methods help somewhat with this though right? That's part of the goal of generic methods even; the portion of SICP where they are introduced is even about getting two programmers who don't necessarily get along to get their code to work together.