2008/9/25 Clinton Ebadi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> No wonder -- lambda calculus is a formal system to express concepts
>> and you can express practically anything in it. C was invented to program
>> von Neumann machines, and both C++ and Java are derivatives of C.
>
> C predates Common Lisp and any Li
2008/9/24 Clinton Ebadi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> This is a bit of an open problem even if the other languages. You can
> specify a collective interface in Java (or a mixin class in C++), but
> you still cannot specify the required behavior of the protocol except
> in an ad hoc fashion. This is a pro
2008/9/25 David Séverin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> (or at least that's what the most people think. CLOS is rarely used
>> compared to C++ and Java -- can you explain why?)
>
> also because people in command sometimes have fear to take their
> responsability: here in Rio de Janeiro, 2 years ago, at PU
Le Wed, 24 Sep 2008 23:04:51 +0200,
"Maciek Godek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> ...
> Note however that both these languages were invented to address
> the particular needs of OOP and as such are well suited for that purpose
> (or at least that's what the most people think. CLOS is rarely used
Hi again,
For an example of an OO system that is even more wildly different, but
still quite interestingly useful, look up the Prometheus object system
for Scheme. I don't know if there is a version that would happily run
on Guile, but there are versions for at least Scheme48 and PLT, IIRC.
I
"Maciek Godek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 2008/9/24 Clinton Ebadi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Interestingly enough, CLOS predates C++ and Java ;-)
>
> No wonder -- lambda calculus is a formal system to express concepts
> and you can express practically anything in it. C was invented to program
> v
Hi,
You might be interested to read Jonathan Rees' take on OO. It certainly
broadens the mind regarding the various implementations and terminology
of OO, but is still quite brief. I certainly don't think the Java/C++
model is the last word in OO (but I didn't think that before reeding
Rees,
Le Wed, 24 Sep 2008 23:04:51 +0200,
"Maciek Godek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> Note however that both these languages were invented to address
> the particular needs of OOP and as such are well suited for that purpose
> (or at least that's what the most people think. CLOS is rarely used
> comp
2008/9/24 Clinton Ebadi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> The other is that in GOOPS a method is something
>> different than what is commonly known in OOP, because
>> a class doesn't know its methods (and furthermore,
>> methods can be created at any time of program execution,
>> not only during class defi
"Maciek Godek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The other is that in GOOPS a method is something
> different than what is commonly known in OOP, because
> a class doesn't know its methods (and furthermore,
> methods can be created at any time of program execution,
> not only during class definition).
Hi,
"Maciek Godek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The other is that in GOOPS a method is something
> different than what is commonly known in OOP,
The design of GOOPS is based on that of CLOS, so GOOPS is surely
familiar to anyone familiar with the CLOS flavor of OOP. :-)
See http://en.wikipedi
Thanks a lot for your all attention and clues.
If it comes to GOOPS, I think it would be best to
specify a well-defined C-level interface (for it would
go with the spirit of guile). This is the one thing.
The other is that in GOOPS a method is something
different than what is commonly known in OO
Howdy,
On Sun 14 Sep 2008 00:42, "Maciek Godek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
> Using some hints you gave me, I've implemented a really tiny
> object system
Neat!
> your opinion ("why it's still better to use goops" :D)
Use what you want :)
But:
> storing objects as vectors allows for an
Your object system seems not to have a meta-object protocol.
There is an interesting and important book about this subject, and it's
worth reading if you haven't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_the_Metaobject_Protocol
But, you said you are going for simple/less powerful.
pgpl8bVGRMGN
Hi Maciek,
Thanks for sharing this!
2008/9/14 Maciek Godek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi,
> Using some hints you gave me, I've implemented a really tiny
> object system -- and I would like to know your opinion ("why
> it's still better to use goops" :D)
You have already given a good summary of the p
Hi,
Using some hints you gave me, I've implemented a really tiny
object system -- and I would like to know your opinion ("why
it's still better to use goops" :D)
The notation for defining classes is following (using example of a sphere):
(define sphere
(class
'(x y radius)
'((move (dx
16 matches
Mail list logo
