David Kastrup writes: > Arne Babenhauserheide <arne_...@web.de> writes: > >> Marko Rauhamaa <ma...@pacujo.net> 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.
