David Nolen <dnolen.li...@gmail.com> writes: > At this point you have to roll your own, I have an experimental thing I plan > on fleshing out temporarily called CLJOS. I've implemented field > inheritance, type inheritance, basic multiple inheritance, basic > introspection. Search the mailing list for CLJOS and you'll see more > details. It only took 200 lines of code [...]
This is interesting, thanks! > Not too many people are doing heavy or fancy GUI related stuff (as far as I > can tell) so I can understand why this hasn't come up often. I note that > you work with weblocks so I can see where you're coming from and I'm glad > you're bringing it up. Yes, you get the same issue when writing a widget-based web framework. I mean, I know functional programming is all the rage now, but there are things which really are very well represented by objects and inheritance, and GUI elements and web page widgets belong to that category. Every widget has a dom-id and dom-class, for example, while certain widgets also have other attributes. > That said, I imagine if a decent, useful, and complete lightweight object > system could be designed I'm sure it could get rolled into clojure-contrib > without too much brouhaha. That's what I was curious about -- I wanted to know whether this is the desired outcome. Also, before someone brings that up: I believe CLOS is overly complex. I don't necessarily want all of CLOS+MOP in Clojure. Still, I think there is a reasonable compromise to be found somewhere. --J. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
