From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.user Subject: Re: How to make GNU Guile more successful Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 01:18:29 +0100 Organization: Organization?!? Message-ID: <87r33162wa.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> References: <87lgtajpkc.fsf@web.de> <878tp967p4.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> <87shnhabln.fsf@web.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1487031567 24989 195.159.176.226 (14 Feb 2017 00:19:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 00:19:27 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.0.50 (gnu/linux) To: guile-user@gnu.org Original-X-From: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Feb 14 01:19:19 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 1cdQpx-0005ly-Uk for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 01:19:18 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:60201 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cdQq1-0006Dr-Tm for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 19:19:21 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59911) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cdQpb-0006Dk-CI for guile-user@gnu.org; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 19:18:56 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cdQpY-0004TR-82 for guile-user@gnu.org; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 19:18:55 -0500 Original-Received: from [195.159.176.226] (port=36151 helo=blaine.gmane.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cdQpY-0004TL-0V for guile-user@gnu.org; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 19:18:52 -0500 Original-Received: from list by blaine.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cdQpL-0003Rp-2F for guile-user@gnu.org; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 01:18:39 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 29 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org X-Face: 2FEFf>]>q>2iw=B6, xrUubRI>pR&Ml9=ao@P@i)L:\urd*t9M~y1^:+Y]'C0~{mAl`oQuAl \!3KEIp?*w`|bL5qr,H)LFO6Q=qx~iH4DN; i"; /yuIsqbLLCh/!U#X[S~(5eZ41to5f%E@'ELIi$t^ Vc\LWP@J5p^rst0+('>Er0=^1{]M9!p?&:\z]|;&=NP3AhB!B_bi^]Pfkw Cancel-Lock: sha1:sM5ixbPiPkoJIN7Pctbr4UUNYEc= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 195.159.176.226 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:13190 Archived-At: 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. -- David Kastrup