Panicz Maciej Godek <godek.mac...@gmail.com>: > 2016-03-30 13:18 GMT+02:00 Jan Nieuwenhuizen <jann...@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
